0173 Grouping strategies for exposure assessment of the psychosocial work environment

Morten Vejs Willert; Vivi Schlünssen; Ioannis Basinas; Zara Ann Stokholm; Matias Brødsgaard Grynderup; Johan Hviid Andersen; Reiner Ernst Rugulies; Åse Marie Hansen; Linda Kærlev; Jane Frølund Thomsen; Marianne Agergaard Vammen; Henrik Kolstad

doi:10.1136/oemed-2014-102362.69

0173 Grouping strategies for exposure assessment of the psychosocial work environment

Morten Vejs Willert, Vivi Schlünssen, Ioannis Basinas, Zara Ann Stokholm, Matias Brødsgaard Grynderup, Johan Hviid Andersen, Reiner Ernst Rugulies, Åse Marie Hansen, Linda Kærlev, Jane Frølund Thomsen, Marianne Agergaard Vammen, Henrik Kolstad

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Individual response style, mood, expectations, and health status may affect reporting of the psychosocial work environment, and bias associations with outcomes. Reporting bias may be avoided by aggregating individual responses, ideally preserving exposure contrast. In this study, we examined the degree of exposure contrast yielded by different grouping strategies.

METHOD: In 2007, we enrolled 4489 public employees from Aarhus, Denmark in the PRISME-cohort, with follow-up in 2009. From pay-roll registers we grouped workers at 2 organisational levels: department (n = 22) and work unit (n = 751), and 3 occupational levels: sector (n = 7), profession (n = 46), and job title (n = 77). Exposures, calculated as means of items scored on 5-point Likert scales, included psychological demands, decision latitude, social support, effort, reward, and procedural and relational justice. To assess variance components, we fitted linear mixed effect models with exposures as dependent variables, and id and grouping variables as random effects. Results are reported as the contrast in mean exposure levels e.g. between-group variance/ (between-group variance +within-group variance).

RESULTS: Within each hierarchy contrasts rose with increasing group-level detail. Grouping by either work unit (wu) or by job title (jt) contrasts were: psychological demands: 0.28(wu); 0.26(jt), decision latitude: 0.24(wu); 0.32(jt), social support: 0.24(wu); 0.06(jt), effort: 0.23(wu); 0.16(jt), reward: 0.19(wu); 0.12(jt), procedural justice: 0.24(wu); 0.14(jt), and relational justice: 0.29(wu); 0.04(jt).

CONCLUSIONS: Grouping by work unit gave the most consistent contrasts (0.19-0.29), while grouping by job title varied considerably (0.04-0.32). These preliminary findings suggest that grouping by work unit provided better exposure contrasts than grouping by job title for all exposures, but decision latitude.

Original language	English
Journal	Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Volume	71 Suppl 1
Pages (from-to)	1-2
Number of pages	2
ISSN	1351-0711
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2014-102362.69
Publication status	Published - Jun 2014

Access to Document

10.1136/oemed-2014-102362.69

Cite this

Vejs Willert, M., Schlünssen, V., Basinas, I., Ann Stokholm, Z., Brødsgaard Grynderup, M., Hviid Andersen, J., Rugulies, R. E., Hansen, Å. M., Kærlev, L., Frølund Thomsen, J., Agergaard Vammen, M., & Kolstad, H. (2014). 0173 Grouping strategies for exposure assessment of the psychosocial work environment. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 71 Suppl 1, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2014-102362.69

Vejs Willert, M, Schlünssen, V, Basinas, I, Ann Stokholm, Z, Brødsgaard Grynderup, M, Hviid Andersen, J, Rugulies, RE , Hansen, ÅM, Kærlev, L, Frølund Thomsen, J, Agergaard Vammen, M & Kolstad, H 2014, '0173 Grouping strategies for exposure assessment of the psychosocial work environment', Occupational and Environmental Medicine, vol. 71 Suppl 1, pp. 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2014-102362.69

@article{ae9bcc9b244c45fe8bb68c18a96613a5,

title = "0173 Grouping strategies for exposure assessment of the psychosocial work environment",

abstract = "OBJECTIVES: Individual response style, mood, expectations, and health status may affect reporting of the psychosocial work environment, and bias associations with outcomes. Reporting bias may be avoided by aggregating individual responses, ideally preserving exposure contrast. In this study, we examined the degree of exposure contrast yielded by different grouping strategies.METHOD: In 2007, we enrolled 4489 public employees from Aarhus, Denmark in the PRISME-cohort, with follow-up in 2009. From pay-roll registers we grouped workers at 2 organisational levels: department (n = 22) and work unit (n = 751), and 3 occupational levels: sector (n = 7), profession (n = 46), and job title (n = 77). Exposures, calculated as means of items scored on 5-point Likert scales, included psychological demands, decision latitude, social support, effort, reward, and procedural and relational justice. To assess variance components, we fitted linear mixed effect models with exposures as dependent variables, and id and grouping variables as random effects. Results are reported as the contrast in mean exposure levels e.g. between-group variance/ (between-group variance +within-group variance).RESULTS: Within each hierarchy contrasts rose with increasing group-level detail. Grouping by either work unit (wu) or by job title (jt) contrasts were: psychological demands: 0.28(wu); 0.26(jt), decision latitude: 0.24(wu); 0.32(jt), social support: 0.24(wu); 0.06(jt), effort: 0.23(wu); 0.16(jt), reward: 0.19(wu); 0.12(jt), procedural justice: 0.24(wu); 0.14(jt), and relational justice: 0.29(wu); 0.04(jt).CONCLUSIONS: Grouping by work unit gave the most consistent contrasts (0.19-0.29), while grouping by job title varied considerably (0.04-0.32). These preliminary findings suggest that grouping by work unit provided better exposure contrasts than grouping by job title for all exposures, but decision latitude.",

author = "{Vejs Willert}, Morten and Vivi Schl{\"u}nssen and Ioannis Basinas and {Ann Stokholm}, Zara and {Br{\o}dsgaard Grynderup}, Matias and {Hviid Andersen}, Johan and Rugulies, {Reiner Ernst} and Hansen, {{\AA}se Marie} and Linda K{\ae}rlev and {Fr{\o}lund Thomsen}, Jane and {Agergaard Vammen}, Marianne and Henrik Kolstad",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2014, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.",

year = "2014",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1136/oemed-2014-102362.69",

language = "English",

volume = "71 Suppl 1",

pages = "1--2",

journal = "Occupational and Environmental Medicine",

issn = "1351-0711",

publisher = "B M J Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 0173 Grouping strategies for exposure assessment of the psychosocial work environment

AU - Vejs Willert, Morten

AU - Schlünssen, Vivi

AU - Basinas, Ioannis

AU - Ann Stokholm, Zara

AU - Brødsgaard Grynderup, Matias

AU - Hviid Andersen, Johan

AU - Rugulies, Reiner Ernst

AU - Hansen, Åse Marie

AU - Kærlev, Linda

AU - Frølund Thomsen, Jane

AU - Agergaard Vammen, Marianne

AU - Kolstad, Henrik

PY - 2014/6

Y1 - 2014/6

N2 - OBJECTIVES: Individual response style, mood, expectations, and health status may affect reporting of the psychosocial work environment, and bias associations with outcomes. Reporting bias may be avoided by aggregating individual responses, ideally preserving exposure contrast. In this study, we examined the degree of exposure contrast yielded by different grouping strategies.METHOD: In 2007, we enrolled 4489 public employees from Aarhus, Denmark in the PRISME-cohort, with follow-up in 2009. From pay-roll registers we grouped workers at 2 organisational levels: department (n = 22) and work unit (n = 751), and 3 occupational levels: sector (n = 7), profession (n = 46), and job title (n = 77). Exposures, calculated as means of items scored on 5-point Likert scales, included psychological demands, decision latitude, social support, effort, reward, and procedural and relational justice. To assess variance components, we fitted linear mixed effect models with exposures as dependent variables, and id and grouping variables as random effects. Results are reported as the contrast in mean exposure levels e.g. between-group variance/ (between-group variance +within-group variance).RESULTS: Within each hierarchy contrasts rose with increasing group-level detail. Grouping by either work unit (wu) or by job title (jt) contrasts were: psychological demands: 0.28(wu); 0.26(jt), decision latitude: 0.24(wu); 0.32(jt), social support: 0.24(wu); 0.06(jt), effort: 0.23(wu); 0.16(jt), reward: 0.19(wu); 0.12(jt), procedural justice: 0.24(wu); 0.14(jt), and relational justice: 0.29(wu); 0.04(jt).CONCLUSIONS: Grouping by work unit gave the most consistent contrasts (0.19-0.29), while grouping by job title varied considerably (0.04-0.32). These preliminary findings suggest that grouping by work unit provided better exposure contrasts than grouping by job title for all exposures, but decision latitude.

AB - OBJECTIVES: Individual response style, mood, expectations, and health status may affect reporting of the psychosocial work environment, and bias associations with outcomes. Reporting bias may be avoided by aggregating individual responses, ideally preserving exposure contrast. In this study, we examined the degree of exposure contrast yielded by different grouping strategies.METHOD: In 2007, we enrolled 4489 public employees from Aarhus, Denmark in the PRISME-cohort, with follow-up in 2009. From pay-roll registers we grouped workers at 2 organisational levels: department (n = 22) and work unit (n = 751), and 3 occupational levels: sector (n = 7), profession (n = 46), and job title (n = 77). Exposures, calculated as means of items scored on 5-point Likert scales, included psychological demands, decision latitude, social support, effort, reward, and procedural and relational justice. To assess variance components, we fitted linear mixed effect models with exposures as dependent variables, and id and grouping variables as random effects. Results are reported as the contrast in mean exposure levels e.g. between-group variance/ (between-group variance +within-group variance).RESULTS: Within each hierarchy contrasts rose with increasing group-level detail. Grouping by either work unit (wu) or by job title (jt) contrasts were: psychological demands: 0.28(wu); 0.26(jt), decision latitude: 0.24(wu); 0.32(jt), social support: 0.24(wu); 0.06(jt), effort: 0.23(wu); 0.16(jt), reward: 0.19(wu); 0.12(jt), procedural justice: 0.24(wu); 0.14(jt), and relational justice: 0.29(wu); 0.04(jt).CONCLUSIONS: Grouping by work unit gave the most consistent contrasts (0.19-0.29), while grouping by job title varied considerably (0.04-0.32). These preliminary findings suggest that grouping by work unit provided better exposure contrasts than grouping by job title for all exposures, but decision latitude.

U2 - 10.1136/oemed-2014-102362.69

DO - 10.1136/oemed-2014-102362.69

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 25018288

SN - 1351-0711

VL - 71 Suppl 1

SP - 1

EP - 2

JO - Occupational and Environmental Medicine

JF - Occupational and Environmental Medicine

ER -

0173 Grouping strategies for exposure assessment of the psychosocial work environment

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this