PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of emotional labor, somatic symptoms, and emotional support on quality of life among middle-aged women workers.
Methods
The study design was a descriptive survey research. Data were collected from October 2013 to January 2014 in Korea. A self-reported questionnaire was administerd in a convenience sample of 264 middle aged women in various working places. The survey included socio-demographic and job-related factors, and the questionnaires about emotional labor, somatic symptoms, emotional support, and quality of life. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, pearson's correlation coefficient, and stepwise multiple regression.
Results
Stepwise multiple regression showed that somatic symptoms had the greatest effect on quality of life (β=-1.65, p<.001), followed by emotional support (β=0.67, p<.001), and job satisfaction (β=3.98, p<.001). And these variables accounted for 52% of quality of life among middle-aged women workers (F=97.14, p<.001).
Conclusion
These results suggest for clinical nurses to take somatic symptoms, emotional support, and job satisfaction into special account in order to improve the middle aged women worker's quality of life. Ultimately, a health promotion program focusing on these influential variables in workplace need to be developed for the given population.
REFERENCES
1.Statistics Korea. Annual report on the economically active population survey [Internet]. Daejeon: Statistics Korea;2013. [cited 2014 August 7]. Available from:. http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_pi/6/4/index.action?bmode=read&seq=462.
2.Ministry of Employment and Labor. Employment trends [Internet]. Sejong: Ministry of Employment and Labor;2014. [cited 2014 November 1]. Available from:. http://www.moel.go.kr/.
3.Min HJ. Who gets a good job?-An analysis on the entry process into good jobs and bad jobs in the Korean women's labor market. Economy and Society. 2008. 78:223–55.
4.Korea Employment Information Service. Employment issue [Internet]. Chungcheongbuk-do: Korea Employment Information Service;2014. [cited 2014 November 1]. Available from:. http://www.keis.or.kr/.
5.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2013 Better Life Index [Internet]. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development;2014. [cited 2014 November 1]. Available from:. http://www.oecd.org/statistics/2014.
6.Chung MS. Resilience, coping methods and quality of life in middle-aged women. Journal of Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2011. 20(4):345–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.12934/jkpmhn.2011.20.4.345.
7.Lee JS., Choi WS. A study on path of work-family reconciliation conflict of married working women. Journal of Asian Women. 2011. 50(1):169–98.
8.Räikkönen K., Matthews KA., Kuller LH. Depressive symptoms and stressful life events predict metabolic syndrome among middle-aged women: a comparison of world health organization, adult treatment panel III, and international diabetes foundation definitions. Diabetes Care. 2007. 30(4):872–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc06-1857.
9.Blom V. Contingent self-esteem, stressors and burnout in working women and men. Work. 2012. 43(2):123–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-1366.
10.Jeong MG. A study on the effect of emotional labor and psychological well-being on employee's emotional dissonance. Korea Journal of Business Administration. 2012. 25(1):171–93.
11.Guy ME., Newman MA. Women's jobs, men's jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review. 2004. 64(3):289–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00373.x.
12.Kroenke K., Spitzer RL., Williams JB. The PHQ-15: validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2002. 64(2):258–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200203000-00008.
13.Chandola T., Britton A., Brunner E., Hemingway H., Malik M., Kumari M, et al. Work stress and coronary heart disease: what are the mechanisms? European Heart Journal. 2008. 29(5):640–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehm584.
14.Norberg M., Stenlund H., Lindahl B., Andersson C., Eriksson JW., Weinehall L. Work stress and low emotional support is associated with increased risk of future type 2 diabetes in women. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2007. 76(3):368–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2006.09.002.
15.Mann S., Cowburn J. Emotional labour and stress within mental health nursing. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2005. 12(2):154–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00807.x.
16.Yang X., Ge C., Hu B., Chi T., Wang L. Relationship between quality of life and occupational stress among teachers. Public Health. 2009. 123(11):750–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2009.09.018.
17.Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang AG., Buchner A. GPOWER 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007. 39:175–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146.
18.Mann S. Achieving frontline communication excellence: the potential cost to health. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 1998. 41(4):254–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/47.735367.
19.Weber KD., Patterson BR. Construction and validation of a communication based emotional support scale. Communication Research Reports. 1996. 13(1):68–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824099609362072.
20.Cella DF., Tulsky DS., Gray G., Sarafian B., Linn E., Bonomi A, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1993. 11(3):570–9.
21.Webster K., Cella D., Yost K. The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2003. 1(1):1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-79.
22.Lee BH., Park AC., Lee KH. The structural relationships on the family income, self-esteem, role adaptations, and identity formation of the married mid-life women; focusing on employed women. Korean Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010. 24(1):103–20.
23.Kang SO., Ha KS. Relations between the middle aged's perception of successful aging and their preparations for the old age. Journal of Digital Convergence. 2013. 11(12):121–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.14400/JDPM.2013.11.12.121.
24.Ryu TM., We HK., Jung HW. An empirical study on the effect of emotional labor on job satisfaction: the moderating effects of emotional leadership and empowerment. Journal of Human Resource Management Research. 2014. 21(3):435–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.14396/jhrmr.2014.21.3.435.
25.Shin KR., Kang Y., Park HJ., Kim K., Jin LH. Depression, soma-toform disorders, and quality of life between poor sleepers and good sleepers in community-dwelling older adults. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Adult Nursing. 2011. 23(4):332–9.
26.Kim HJ., Choi H. Emergency nurses' professional quality of life: compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2012. 18(3):320–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2012.18.3.320.
27.Kim SA., Kim SY. The impacts of self-esteem and social support on mental health of the middle-age women. Journal of Welfare for the Aged. 2011. 52:109–30.
28.Baik DW., Yom YH. Effects of social support and emotional intelligence in the relationship between emotional labor and burnout among clinical nurses. The Journal of Korean Nursing Administration Academic Society. 2012. 18(3):271–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2012.18.3.271.
29.Cho EA., Ojh HE. Effects of laughter therapy on depression, quality of life, resilience and immune responses in breast cancer survivors. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2011. 41(3):285–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2011.41.3.285.
30.Kim AK. Yangsaeng and health related quality of life (HRQOL). Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. 2010. 16(3):297–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2010.16.3.297.
Table 1.
Socio-demographic and Job related Characteristics of the Subjects (N=264)
Table 2.
Emotional Labor, Somatic Symptoms, Emotional Support and Quality of life of the Subjects (N=264)
Table 3.
Differences of Emotional Labor, Somatic Symptoms, Emotional Support and Quality of life by General Characteristics and Job related Characteristics of the Subjects (N=264)
| Emotional labor | Somatic symptoms | Emotional support | Quality of life | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | M±SD | t/F/r (p) | M±SD | t/F/r (p) | M±SD | t/F/r (p) | M±SD | t/F/r (p) |
| Age (year)† | ||||||||
| 40~45 | 72.89±16.56 | 2.83 | 7.09±5.03 | 0.31 | 48.85±8.36 | 0.94 | 77.13±15.82 | 0.36 |
| 46~50 | 72.06±18.81 | (.039) | 6.72±4.54 | (.817) | 48.86±8.53 | (.963) | 74.64±15.35 | (.781) |
| 51~55 | 79.65±20.20 | 6.40±4.66 | 48.55±9.11 | 75.33±16.13 | ||||
| ≥56 | 67.81±23.11 | 6.14±4.66 | 47.86±9.04 | 74.00±19.62 | ||||
| Education | ||||||||
| ≤Middle school | 73.67±20.14 | 0.31 | 6.56±4.45 | 0.40 | 48.11±10.24 | 0.02 | 73.11±11.35 | 0.20 |
| High school | 74.30±19.50 | (.732) | 6.92±4.36 | (.670) | 48.74±8.13 | (.987) | 74.90±15.24 | (.818) |
| ≥University | 72.38±19.00 | 6.39±5.01 | 48.71±9.16 | 75.88±17.15 | ||||
| Religion | ||||||||
| Yes | 72.61±19.68 | -1.05 | 7.10±4.92 | 2.11 | 49.21±8.38 | 1.37 | 75.06±16.02 | -0.28 |
| No | 75.26±18.32 | (.297) | 5.81±3.87 | (.036) | 47.66±9.06 | (.173) | 75.65±15.84 | (.781) |
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Married | 74.06±19.55 | 1.45 | 6.54±4.61 | -1.46 | 48.70±8.68 | -0.06 | 75.96±15.75 | 2.08 |
| Single (or divorce, bereavement) | 68.59±16.13 | (.149) | 7.86±4.83 | (.147) | 48.79±8.23 | (.955) | 69.48±16.52 | (.039) |
| Personal monthly income | ||||||||
| ＜100 | 76.61±20.66 | 0.65 | 6.28±4.51 | 1.18 | 50.17±8.43 | 1.53 | 79.06±14.66 | 2.42 |
| 100~＜200 | 74.09±19.12 | (.524) | 7.06±4.60 | (.310) | 47.91±8.56 | (.219) | 73.42±16.29 | (.091) |
| ≥200 | 71.86±19.27 | 6.16±4.72 | 49.69±8.70 | 77.43±15.33 | ||||
| Classification of occupation | ||||||||
| Regular workers | 72.23±19.86 | -1.33 | 6.44±4.58 | -1.07 | 49.32±9.15 | 1.47 | 75.69±16.42 | 0.57 |
| Contingent workers | 75.46±18.15 | (.186) | 7.07±4.74 | (.286) | 47.72±7.63 | (.144) | 74.54±15.18 | (.572) |
| Type of job | ||||||||
| Self-employed, C & I | 73.96±19.28 | 0.84 | 6.82±4.91 | 2.20 | 49.07±8.66 | 0.76 | 72.67±12.94 | 1.32 |
| Office job | 74.83±16.27 | (.843) | 8.03±5.53 | (.055) | 47.21±10.52 | (.580) | 72.24±17.92 | (.258) |
| Specialized job | 71.11±18.78 | 5.47±4.11 | 48.14±8.52 | 77.16±16.85 | ||||
| Sales and service | 73.29±20.94 | 7.25±4.74 | 50.15±8.09 | 78.08±16.46 | ||||
| Production worker | 77.33±17.34 | 8.27±4.03 | 49.20±7.69 | 71.33±18.02 | ||||
| Etc. (including directorship) | 75.13±20.90 | 5.93±3.92 | 47.43±8.50 | 74.27±13.92 | ||||
| Reasons for working† | ||||||||
| For making moneya | 73.08±19.29 | 0.33 | 7.13±4.70 | 3.27 | 48.64±8.54 | 0.43 | 73.46±16.07 | 3.60 |
| For self-realizationb | 72.86±21.85 | (.805) | 4.79±4.05 | (.022) | 48.41±8.43 | (.730) | 82.66±14.90 | (.014) |
| For do a role as social memberc d | 73.44±20.17 | 7.07±4.42 | 47.93±7.67 | 75.56±14.34 | a＜b | |||
| Etc.d | 77.17±14.91 | 5.08±4.42 | 50.50±10.60 | 79.71±15.20 | ||||
| Job satisfaction† | ||||||||
| Not satisfieda | 70.20±13.71 | 1.54 | 9.80±5.70 | 5.82 | 41.80±9.68 | 3.62 | 58.73±19.29 | 10.63 |
| So-sob | 75.96±18.42 | (.204) | 7.91±4.31 | (.001) | 49.56±7.44 | (.014) | 70.79±13.18 ( | (＜.001) |
| Satisfiedc | 73.43±19.80 | 5.89±4.29 | a, b＞c | 49.01±8.57 | a＜b, c | 78.22±15.12 | a＜c, d | |
| Very satisfiedd | 64.23±20.58 | 6.54±6.65 | 48.31±11.24 | 80.38±19.57 | ||||
| Number of diagnosed disease | .08 | .31 | -.07 | -.27 | ||||
| (.221) | (＜.001) | (.240) | (＜.001) | |||||
Table 4.
Correlations among Emotional Labor, Somatic Symptoms, Emotional Support, and Quality of life (N=264)
XML Download