PURPOSE: The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ I) was developed as a tool to assess a broad range of psychosocial work environment factors and was recently revised (COPSOQ II). The research question in this study was: Do COPSOQ II-scales predict a high need for recovery (NFR) after work better than COPSOQ I-scales? METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted in 990 subjects (84.5% response), employed in the public sector. Psychosocial factors were assessed by COPSOQ I and COPSOQ II. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the odds ratios for the presence of a high NFR, controlled for gender, age, physical workload and other relevant occupational and non-occupational factors. Analyses were performed for COPSOQ I and COPSOQ II separately. RESULTS: In both COPSOQ versions, 'quantitative demands' (p < 0.001) and 'job insecurity' (p < 0.005) were significantly associated with a high NFR. Additionally, in the COPSOQ I model, 'demands for hiding emotions' (p < 0.05) and 'degrees of freedom' (p < 0.05), and in the COPSOQ II model 'emotional demands' (p < 0.05) and 'commitment to the workplace' (p < 0.005) were significant as well. 'Degrees of freedom' was omitted by the developers in the revised COPSOQ II. Reintroducing it into the COPSOQ II model did not alter the existing associations, but pointed out 'degrees of freedom' to be an additional important dimension (p < 0.05). The COPSOQ II model with 'degrees of freedom' included also had the best data fit. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested the COPSOQ II to be better predictive than COPSOQ I for a high NFR, but also indicated that 'degrees of freedom' should be included into the COPSOQ II when studying the NFR as outcome parameter.

The study enabled to identify several easy to assess occupational factors that were associated with NSC, providing clear cut-off points concerning duration of computer work. Use of the computer mouse, both duration and relative position, and forearm support were also important factors.

No abstract

IntroductionRecently a new legislation on re-integration of employees on long-term sick leave was introduced in Belgium. The purpose is to facilitate return to work of disabled employees with adapted or other work. The more prominent social importance and government demand could change the role of the occupational health physician (OHP).The question could be asked how OHP’s perceive their changing role in the re-integration process?Methods61 OHP’s (93.8% response) working in a Belgian occupational health service participated in a survey. Five function roles were defined:‘healthcare provider’: helping the employee (trust relationship);‘coach’: coaching and motivating the employee;‘service provider’: focus on employer’s situation;‘expert’: focus on evidence based medical evaluation;‘controller’: employees who are able to work, obligate to do so. The frequency of each role was asked for three different situations: occupational medical examination (OME), current attitude in re-integration examination (CARE), best possible attitude to assume in re-integration examination (BARE). Mean scores (0–10) were calculated per function role, a higher score was concordant with a higher frequency.ResultsIn all 3 situations the roles of healthcare (7.3–7.7) and service provider (5.8–6.2) scored similarly. The coach role was highest in the BARE (8.2), followed by the OME (7.7) and the CARE (7.0). The expert role was predominantly in the BARE (8.2) compared to the OME (6.7) and the CARE (6.6). The score for controller increased gradually from 2.9 (OME), over 3.5 (CARE) to 4.8 (BARE).DiscussionThe OHP is a healthcare and service provider in all circumstances. In the BARE the most important roles were those of expert and coach, followed by healthcare and service provider. Although the role of controller had the highest score in this situation, it still remained the less important of the five roles.