Do work-related factors contribute to differences in doctor-certified sick leave? A prospective study comparing women in health and social occupations with women in the general working population

Abstract

BackgroundDoctor –certified sick leave is prevalent in the health and social sector. We examined whether the higher risk of doctor-certified sick leave in women in health and social occupations compared to women in other occupations was explained by particular work-related psychosocial and mechanical risk factors.MethodsA randomly drawn cohort aged 18–69 years from the general population in Norway was surveyed in 2009 (n = 12,255, response at baseline = 60.9 %), and was followed up in the national registry of social transfer payments in 2010. Eligible respondents were women registered with an active employee relationship for ≥100 actual working days in 2009 and 2010 (n = 3032). Using this sample, we compared health and social workers (n = 661) with the general working population (n = 2371). The outcome of interest was long-term sick leave (LTSL) ≥21 working days during 2010. Eight psychosocial and eight mechanical factors were evaluated.ResultsAfter adjusting for age, previous LTSL, education and working hours/week, women in health and social occupations had a higher risk for LTSL compared with women in the general working population (OR = 1.42, 95 % CI = 1.13–1.79; p = 0.003). After adjusting for psychosocial and mechanical factors, 70 % of the excess risk for LTSL was explained compared with the initial model. The main contributory factors to the increased risk were threats of violence and violence, emotional demands and awkward lifting.ConclusionsPsychosocial and mechanical factors explained much of the excess risk for LTSL in women in health and social occupations compared with working women in general. Psychosocial risk factors were the most important contributors.

Cause-specific sickness absence trends by occupational class and industrial sector in the context of recent labour market changes: a Finnish panel data study

“…12 13 Findings from Norway indicated that the higher risk of sickness absence among those employed in health and social occupations was largely explained by their unfavourable psychosocial and physical working conditions. 13 A Finnish study also showed that employees in the combined sector of education, health and social work had poorer health in terms of a higher risk of hospitalisation compared with those in other sectors. This applied to various disease groups, including musculoskeletal diseases and mental disorders.…”

“…12 Accordingly, a Norwegian study indicated that the risk of long-term sickness absence was higher among women employed in health and social occupations than among the general female-employed population. 13 There may also be an important interplay between occupational class and industrial sector; even within a particular occupational class, the types of jobs may vary considerably between different sectors. Previous population-based findings from Denmark 12 and Sweden 14 have shown large differences in long-term sickness absence between particular occupational groups.…”

A systematic literature review of the relationship between work hours and sickness absence

“…However, if part-time employees bear the burden of their illness during their non-working hours, it might highlight an inequality of involuntary part-time employment. Finally, several studies on sickness absence include work hours as a control variable (Aagestad, Tyssen, & Sterud, 2016;Bernstrøm, 2013;Böckerman & Laukkanen, 2010a), sometimes without showing or commenting on the relationship between the two. Not knowing how or why work hours influence sickness absence can obscure study results.…”

Long-term Sickness Absence Among Professionals: Investigating Gender, Socioeconomic Position and Care Work

“…While physical work conditions are the most likely explanations for the socioeconomic gradient in LTSA (Christensen et al 2008;Löve et al 2013), also psychosocial factors are pertinent (Melchior et al 2005;Niedhammer et al 2008). Similarly, certain physical and psychosocial hazards have also been linked to heightened risk of LTSA for caring work (Aagestad et al 2016) and researchers have particularly emphasized the emotional demands as straining (Indregard et al 2017;Rugulies et al 2007).…”

“…The argument for a distinction between caring and noncaring professionals is that the handling of clients with personal needs implies a heightened risk of LTSA. Workers in health care and social services have a high risk (Lund et al 2007), and a recent study found that awkward lifting, threats of violence, actual violence, and emotional demands explained a substantial part of the difference in the risk of LTSA for women in these services compared with women in the general working population (Aagestad et al 2016).…”