Workplace Culture and Biomarkers of Health Risk

Abstract

Workplace culture has been studied for impact on health risk; however, connections with robust biologic markers of health remain to be established. We examined associations between the work environment and urinary levels of catecholamines and their metabolites as biomarkers of sympathetic nervous system activity, indicative of stress. We recruited participants (n = 219; 2018–2019) from a cardiovascular risk cohort to investigate workplace culture, well-being, and stress. Participants completed seven questionnaires. Urine samples were used to measure catecholamines and their metabolites by LC/MS/MS. Pearson correlation and linear regression models were used after adjusting for demographics and creatinine. Participants reporting higher well-being had lower urinary levels of dopamine, serotonin, and 3-methoxytyramine. Participants reporting a more engaged and more positive workplace had lower levels of dopamine and 3-methoxytyramine. Reported workplace isolation was correlated with higher levels of dopamine and 3-methoxytyramine. Given correlations between catecholamines, we used 3-methoxytyramine for linear regression. In fully adjusted models, in environments with a more positive culture, levels of 3-methoxytyramine remained lower (β = −0.065 ± 0.025, p = 0.01) and indicated a positive association between workplace isolation and 3-methoxytyramine (β = 0.064 ± 0.030, p = 0.04). These findings are consistent with an important relationship between workplace environment and sympathetic nervous system activity.

Employee Engagement With Corporate-Based Health and Wellness Programs: A Multiple Regression Analysis

“…In short, an employee may become sick or at risk for disease not because they are choosing to be or because they are too lazy or need to go to bed earlier. Instead, the WDOH framework explores how work-based experiences could be an underlying and contributing factor to choice and decisions pertaining to health, and that disease could be a function of how employees internalize experiences of work and physically manifest outcomes that lead to illness (see Shuck et al, 2022Shuck et al, , 2023 for more complete details).…”

Reimagining Well-Being Research in HRD

“…Individuals with positive signs of well-being are more likely to have healthy social relationships (WHO, 1997), and experience stability both in life and work (Ardelt et al, 2018). The negative affect of emotions such as anger, anxiety, stress, or fear are likely to lower our well-being (Smith & Reid, 2017), negatively impact engagement with work and job satisfaction (Shuck et al, 2022) and relationships with partners and family members (Bourke & Geldens, 2007). Within the workplace literature, we find interesting connections linking well-being and safety (Utriainen et al, 2015), and workplace conditions that can be conducive (e.g., Sommerfeldt et al, 2019) or detrimental to our well-being (Shuck et al, 2022).…”

“…The negative affect of emotions such as anger, anxiety, stress, or fear are likely to lower our well-being (Smith & Reid, 2017), negatively impact engagement with work and job satisfaction (Shuck et al, 2022) and relationships with partners and family members (Bourke & Geldens, 2007). Within the workplace literature, we find interesting connections linking well-being and safety (Utriainen et al, 2015), and workplace conditions that can be conducive (e.g., Sommerfeldt et al, 2019) or detrimental to our well-being (Shuck et al, 2022). Well-being studies in the context of the workplace undoubtedly resulted in benefits for employees, managers, and leaders (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000).…”