Satisfaction with life and the risk of occupational injury

Sung-Min Park; Hwan-Cheol Kim; Shin-Goo Park; Hyun-Suk Jang; Go Choi; Jong-Han Leem

doi:10.1186/s40557-018-0260-x

Journal List > Ann Occup Environ Med > v.30(1) > 1125050

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Kim, Park, Jang, Choi, and Leem: Satisfaction with life and the risk of occupational injury

Research Article

Ann Occup Environ Med 2018;30(1):49.

Published online: 4 February 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40557-018-0260-x

Satisfaction with life and the risk of occupational injury

Sung-Min Park^1,², Hwan-Cheol Kim^1,^3,^*, Shin-Goo Park^1,³, Hyun-Suk Jang^1,², Go Choi^1,², Jong-Han Leem^1,³

¹Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, Inha University Hospital, 7-206 3rd St. Shinhung-dong, Jung-gu, Incheon 400–711, Republic of Korea

²Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

³Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea

^*Correspondence: carpediem@inha.ac.kr ¹Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, Inha University Hospital, 7-206 3rd St. Shinhung-dong, Jung-gu, Incheon 400-711, Republic of Korea ³Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, Inha University, Incheon, Republic of Korea Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

Received 5 April 2018 Accepted 12 July 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Occupational injuries increase burden on society as well as personal health. Low satisfaction with life may not only increases the risk of occupational injuries directly, but also influences other factors that increase the risk of occupational injury. Along with previous studies on the risk of occupational injury, we sought to explore the relationship between satisfaction with life and occupational injury.

Methods

The study participants were 6234workers health screened at a university hospital in Incheon. Information on occupational injury and satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) was obtained in a self-report format. Participants were allocated to one of four SWLS groups; the dissatisfied group, the slightly dissatisfied group, the slightly satisfied group, and the satisfied group. The analysis was performed using the chi-square test primarily and by logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders.

Results

In men, the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of low satisfaction with life (SWLS< 20) were 1.98(CI1.55–2.53) and 1.81(CI 1.41–2.32), respectively. When the SWLS were divided into four groups, the adjusted ORs of the slightly satisfied (20–25), slightly dissatisfied(15–19), and dissatisfied(≤14) groups were 1.21, 1.72, and 2.70, respectively. That is ORs tended to increase linearly with decreasing SWLS score (p for trend <0.001). In women, this relation was of borderline significance at best. When subjects were dichotomized based on SWLS scores, for males, the cured and adjusted RRs of occupational injury in the low satisfaction with life group were1.91 (95% CI: 1.50–2.42) and 1.66 (95% CI: 1.30–2.13), and for females, the adjusted-RR was marginally significant (1.67; 95% CI: 0.93–2.99). When subjects were divided into four groups by SWLS scores, adjusted RRs tended to increase linearly with decreasing SWLS score for males (slightly satisfied: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.77–1.82; slightly dissatisfied: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.08–2.52; dissatisfied: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.44–3.42; p for trend <0.001) and for females (slightly satisfied: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.42–3.30; slightly dissatisfied: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.56–4.36; dissatisfied: 2.38, 95% CI: 0.84–6.74; p for trend=0.040).

Conclusions

This study suggests that the risk of occupational injury was higher in workers not satisfied with life, and indicates attention to satisfaction with life may promote the health of workers.

Keywords: Satisfaction with life, Occupational injury, Occupational accident

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hazards & Exposures;2016. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hazards.html. Accessed 7 July 2017.

2. Barling JE, Frone MR. The psychology of workplace safety:. American Psychological Association;2004. p. 3–12.

3. Mekkodathil A, El-Menyar A, Al-Thani H. Occupational injuries in workers from different ethnicities. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2016; 6(1):25–32.

4. Kang Y, Siddiqui S, Suk SJ, Chi S, Kim C. Trends of fall accidents in the US construction industry. J Constr Eng Manag. 2017; 143(8):04017043.

5. Yu S, Lu ML, Gu G, Zhou W, He L, Wang S. Musculoskeletal symptoms and associated risk factors in a large sample of Chinese workers in Henan province of China. Am J Ind Med. 2012; 55(3):281–93.

6. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Traumatic Occupational Injuries;2009. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/injury/data.html. Accessed 7 July 2017.

7. Tao XG, Su PY, Yuspeh L, Lavin RA, Kalia-Satwah N, Bernacki EJ. Is obesity associated with adverse workers'compensation claims outcomes? J Occup Environ Med. 2016; 58(9):880–4.

8. Jadhav R, Achutan C, Haynatzki G, Rajaram S, Rautiainen R. Risk factors for agricultural injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Agromedicine. 2015; 20(4):434–49.

9. Buswell ML, Hourigan M, Nault AJ, Bender JB. Needlestick injuries in agriculture workers and prevention programs. J Agromedicine. 2016; 21(1):82–90.

10. Sorge US, Cherry C, Bender JB. Perception of the importance of human-animal interactions on cattle flow and worker safety on Minnesota dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. 2014; 97(7):4632–8.

11. Barling J, Kelloway EK, Iverson RD. High-quality work, job satisfaction, and occupational injuries. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88(2):276–83.

12. Laal F, Modrek MJ, Balarak D, Mohammadi M, Rakhshani M, Rigi N. Relationship between quality of life and occupational accidents in southeast of Iran (Zahedan). Glob J Health Sci. 2017; 9(2):112–8.

13. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985; 49(1):71–5.

14. Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Honkanen R, Viinamaeki H, Heikkilae K, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M. Life satisfaction and suicide: a 20-year follow-up study. Am J Psychiatry. 2001; 158(3):433–9.

15. Henderson M, Glozier N, Elliott KH. Long term sickness absence. British medical journal publishing Group;2005.

16. Galanakis M, Lakioti A, Pezirkianidis C, Karakasidou E. Stalikas A Reliability and validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in a Greek sample. 5:2017.

17. Swaen GM, Van Amelsvoort LG, Bültmann U, Kant IJ. Fatigue as a risk factor for being injured in an occupational accident: results from the Maastricht cohort study. Occup Environ Med. 2003; 60(Suppl 1):i88–92.

18. Zwerling C, Sprince NL, Wallace RB, Davis CS, Whitten PS, Heeringa SG. Risk factors for occupational injuries among older workers: an analysis of the health and retirement study. Am J Public Health. 1996; 86(9):1306–9.

19. Salminen ST. Epidemiological analysis of serious occupational accidents in southern Finland. Scand J Soc Med. 1994; 22(3):225–7.

20. Fabiano B, Currò F, Pastorino R. Occupational injuries in Italy: risk factors and long term trend (1951–98). Occup Environ Med. 2001; 58(5):330–8.

21. Laitinen-Krispijn S, Bijl R. Mental disorders and employee sickness absence: the NEMESIS study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2000; 35(2):71–7.

22. Stansfeld SA, Fuhrer R, Head J. Impact of common mental disorders on sickness absence in an occupational cohort study. Occup Environ Med. 2011; 68(6):408–13.

23. Stansfeld SA, Rael EG, Head J, Shipley M, Marmot M. Social support and psychiatric sickness absence: a prospective study of British civil servants. Psychol Med. 1997; 27(1):35–48.

24. Frank AL. Injuries related to shiftwork. Am J Prev Med. 2000; 18(4):33–6.

25. Nag PK, Patel VG. Work accidents among shiftworkers in industry. Int J Ind Ergon. 1998; 21(3–4):275–81.

26. Kim YK, Ahn YS, Kim K, Yoon JH, Roh J. Association between job stress and occupational injuries among Korean firefighters: a nationwide cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016; 6(11):e012002.

27. Peele PB, Tollerud DJ. Depression and occupational injury: results of a pilot investigation. J Occup Environ Med. 2005; 47(4):424–7.

28. Yazdanshenas Ghazwin M, Kavian M, Ahmadloo M, Jarchi A, Golchin Javadi S, Latifi S, Tavakoli SA, Ghajarzadeh M. The association between life satisfaction and the extent of depression, anxiety and stress among Iranian nurses: a multicenter survey. Iran J Psychiatry. 2016; 11(2):120–7.

29. Rees D, Cooper CL. Research note: reliability of self-report sickness absence data in the health service. Health Serv Manag Res. 1993; 6(2):140–1.

Table 1

General characteristics of men and women that experienced an occupational injury

	Male				Female
	N	Cases of the occupational injury		p-value ^a	N	Cases of the occupational injury		p-value ^a
	N	n	%	p-value ^a	N	n	%	p-value ^a
Total	4610	297	6.4		1624	57	3.5
Age (years)
< 30	297	21	7.1	0.433	476	15	3.2	0.007
30–39	1628	112	6.9		570	10	1.8
40–49	1632	101	6.2		371	19	5.1
50–59	936	52	5.6		188	12	6.4
≥ 60	117	11	9.4		19	1	5.3
Marital status
Never married	1182	74	6.3	0.899	789	21	2.7	0.133
Married	3356	218	6.5		808	36	4.5
Divorced/widowed	72	5	6.9		27	0	0.0
Educational status
≤ Middle school	195	9	4.6	0.004	107	4	3.7	0.428
High school	2729	203	7.4		1011	31	3.1
≥ College	1686	85	5.0		506	22	4.3
Chronic disease
No	3559	221	6.2	0.236	1482	47	3.2	0.028
Yes	1051	76	7.2		142	10	7.0
Smoking habit
Never	1076	63	5.9	0.001	1570	53	3.4	0.159
Former	1299	61	4.7		28	2	7.1
Current	2235	173	7.7		26	2	7.7
Alcohol consumption (unit/week)
0	1119	69	6.2	0.900	979	30	3.1	0.428
1∼14	2252	146	6.5		567	24	4.2
15+	1239	82	6.6		78	3	3.8

^a Obtained by a Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test

Table 2

Occupational characteristics of men and women that experienced an occupational injury

	Male				Female
	N	Cases of the occupational injury		p-value ^a	N	Cases of the occupational injury		p-value ^a
	N	n	%	p-value ^a	N	n	%	p-value ^a
Industry
Manufacturing	1374	119	8.7	0.001	526	23	4.4	0.641
Wholesale and retail trade	992	73	7.4		309	10	3.2
Membership organizations, repair and other personal services	882	25	2.8		28	0	0.0
Transportation	671	56	8.3		26	0	0.0
Human health and social work activities	139	2	1.4		594	18	3.0
Information and communications	138	0	0.0		26	0	0.0
Electricity, gas, steam and water supply	79	3	3.8		2	0	0.0
Education	53	0	0.0		19	2	10.5
Public administration and defense	42	3	7.1		2	0	0.0
Business facilities management and business support services	27	3	11.1		3	0	0.0
Sewerage, waste management, materials recovery and remediation activities	22	0	0.0		30	1	3.3
Professional, scientific and technical activities	22	1	4.5		1	0	0.0
Others	169	12	7.1		58	3	5.2
Employment status
Regular	4135	259	6.3	0.144	1284	46	3.6	0.757
Temporary	475	38	8.0		340	11	3.2
Shift work
No	2942	186	6.3	0.659	793	33	4.2	0.163
Yes	1668	111	6.7		831	24	2.9
Job tenure (years)
< 1	374	28	7.5	0.178	442	11	2.5	0.060
1–4	576	42	7.3		340	8	2.4
5–9	987	73	7.4		398	14	3.5
≥ 10	2673	154	5.8		444	24	5.4
Hours/week worked
≤ 40	1837	86	4.7	< 0.001	732	29	4.0	0.003
41–59	1959	126	6.4		795	19	2.4
≥ 60	814	85	10.4		97	9	9.3

^a Obtained by a Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test

Table 3

Satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) scores of men and women that experienced an occupational injury

	Male				Female
	N	Cases of the occupational injury		p-value^a	N	Cases of the occupational injury		p-value^a
	N	n	%	p-value^a	N	n	%	p-value^a
Low satisfaction with life
No (SWLS≥20)	2415	109	4.5	<0.001	773	20	2.6	0.054
Yes (SWLS<20)	2195	188	8.6	<0.001	851	37	4.3	0.054
SWLS score in 4 groups
Satisfied (≥26)	785	30	3.8	<0.001	211	5	2.4	0.067
Slightly satisfied (20–25)	1630	79	4.8		562	15	2.7
Slightly dissatisfied (15–19)	1371	97	7.1		503	17	3.4
Dissatisfied (≤14)	824	91	11.0		348	20	5.7

^a Obtained by a Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test

Table 4

Risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) of occupational injury for men and women with respect to SWLS scores

	Male		Female
	Unadjusted RR (95% CI)	Adjusted^a RR (95% CI)	Unadjusted RR (95% CI)	Adjusted^b RR (95% CI)
Low satisfaction with life
No (SWLS≥20)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Yes (SWLS<20)	1.91 (1.50–2.42)	1.66 (1.30–2.13)	1.62 (0.94–2.81)	1.67 (0.93–2.99)
SWLS score in 4 groups
Satisfied (≥26)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Slightly satisfied (20–25)	1.28 (0.84–1.97)	1.18 (0.77–1.82)	1.19 (0.43–3.29)	1.17 (0.42–3.30)
Slightly dissatisfied (15–19)	1.91 (1.26–2.90)	1.65 (1.08–2.52)	1.50 (0.55–4.11)	1.56 (0.56–4.36)
Dissatisfied (≤14)	2.83 (1.86–4.31)	2.22 (1.44–3.42)	2.28 (0.85–6.12)	2.38 (0.84–6.74)
p for trend	< 0.001	<0.001	0.035	0.040
Per 1 point decrease in SWLS	1.07 (1.05–1.09)	1.05 (1.03–1.08)	1.04 (1.00–1.09)	1.04 (0.99–1.10)

^a Adjusted for age, educational level, smoking habit, industry, employment status, tenure, and working hours

^b Adjusted for age, marital status, chronic diseases, industry, shift work, tenure, and working hours

TOOLS

Similar articles