Associations of job, living conditions and lifestyle with occupational injury in working population: a population-based study
- First Online:
- Cite this article as:
- Chau, N., Bourgkard, E., Bhattacherjee, A. et al. Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2008) 81: 379. doi:10.1007/s00420-007-0223-y
To assess the roles of job demands, living conditions and lifestyle in occupational injury.
The sample included 2,888 workers, aged ≥15 years, randomly selected from the north-eastern France. The subjects completed a mailed questionnaire. Data were analyzed with adjusted odds ratios (ORa) computed with the logistic model.
In total, 9.2% of workers had an injury during the previous 2 years. The high job demands: tasks at height, handling objects, pneumatic tools, other vibrating hand tools, work in adverse climate, physical workload, vibrating platform, machine tools, cold, heat, awkward posture, noise, hammer, and pace had crude odds ratios between 1.81 and 5.25 for injury. A strong exposure–response relationship was found between the cumulated job demands (CJD, defined by their number) and injury: OR 1.88 (95% CI 1.23–2.87) for CJD1, 4.39 (2.98–4.46) for CJD2–3, and 9.93 (6.70–14.7) for CJD ≥ 4, versus CJD0. These ORs decreased to 1.68, 3.70, and 7.15 respectively, when adjusted for sex, age, and living conditions/lifestyle confounders; and to 1.54, 2.99, and 5.45 respectively when also adjusted for job category. The following factors had significant ORa: age <30 years (1.54, 1.12–2.12), male (1.64, 1.18–2.30), smoking (1.60, 1.22–2.10), musculoskeletal disorders (1.54, 1.17–2.04), and frequent drug use for fatigue (2.03, 1.17–3.53). The workmen, farmers/craftsmen/tradesmen, and foremen had a 5.7–8.7-fold while the clerks and technicians a 2.7–3.6-fold higher risk compared with upper class. The risk associated with CJD was twofold higher among the workers aged ≥40 or with frequent drug use for fatigue compared with the others. Obesity had ORa 2.05 (1.11–3.78) among the subjects aged ≥40, and excess alcohol use had ORa 2.44 (1.26–4.72) among those free of disease.
This study identified a wide range of job demands and living conditions/lifestyle which predicted injury. Preventive measures should be conducted to reduce job demands and to help workers to be aware of the risk and to improve their living conditions/lifestyle.