Abstract
Purpose
The aims of this study was to investigate the role of the psychosocial work environment—at the individual level as well as the workplace level—in explaining the variability in the employees’ perception of the indoor environment.
Methods
The perception of the indoor environment was surveyed by questionnaires among 3,281 employees in 39 randomly selected workplaces. Multilevel logistic regression analyses included individual-level and workplace-level covariates to examine the effect of context. Associations between psychosocial risk factors at the workplace level and the employees’ perception of the indoor environment was calculated as the interval odds ratios while between-workplace variations were quantified by intraclass correlations and median odds ratios.
Results
We found moderate differences between the workplaces in the perception of the indoor environment, but large differences between individuals in the same building indicating that some occupants of a building do perceive problems in the indoor environment even in the absence of a general indoor air problem in the workplace. The type of organisation accounted for some of the variation in perceived indoor environment. Psychosocial work environment factors at the individual level, but not at the workplace-level, were associated with the individual perception of the indoor environment. In addition, an increased tendency to report symptoms was strongly associated with complaints about the indoor environment suggesting bias due to a tendency to “over-report”.
Conclusion
In studies investigating “sick buildings” contextual factors may be important. Multilevel analyses should be used in future research within workplaces where clustering could be expected.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersson K (1998) Epidemiological approach to indoor air problems. Indoor Air Suppl 4: 32–39
Bakke JV, Moen BE, Wieslander G, Norback D (2007) Gender and the physical and psychosocial work environments are related to indoor air symptoms. J Occup Environ Med 49:641–650
Bluyssen PM, Fernandes EdO, Groes L, Clausen G, Valbjørn O, Bernhard CA, Roulet CA (1996) European Indoor Air Quality Audit Project in 56 office buildings. Indoor Air 6:221–238
Brauer C, Mikkelsen S (2003) The context of a study influences the reporting of symptoms. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76:621–624
Brauer C, Mikkelsen S, Skov P (2000) Reliability and validity of a new questionnaire for investigation of symptoms related to “The Sick Building Syndrome” and perceived Indoor Air Quality [in Danish, Report, own print]. Department of Occupational Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital, Glostrup, Denmark, 1–73
Brauer C, Kolstad H, Orbaek P, Mikkelsen S (2006a) No consistent risk factor pattern for symptoms related to the sick building syndrome: a prospective population based study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79:453–464
Brauer C, Kolstad H, Orbaek P, Mikkelsen S (2006b) The sick building syndrome: a chicken and egg situation? Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79:465–471
Burge S, Hedge A, Wilson S, Bass JH, Robertson A (1987) Sick building syndrome: a study of 4373 office workers. Ann Occup Hyg 31:493–504
Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurements 37–46
Diez-Roux AV (2000) Multilevel analysis in public health research. Annu Rev Public Health 21:171–192
Ebbehoj NE, Meyer HW, Wurtz H, Suadicani P, Valbjorn O, Sigsgaard T, Gyntelberg F (2005) Molds in floor dust, building-related symptoms, and lung function among male and female schoolteachers. Indoor Air 15(Suppl 10):7–16
Johansson SG, Hourihane JO, Bousquet J, Bruijnzeel-Koomen C, Dreborg S, Haahtela T, Kowalski ML, Mygind N, Ring J, van Cauwenberge P, Hage-Hamsten M, Wuthrich B (2001) A revised nomenclature for allergy. An EAACI position statement from the EAACI nomenclature task force. Allergy 56:813–824
Lahtinen M, Huuhtanen P, Kahkonen E, Reijula K (2002) Psychosocial dimensions of solving an indoor air problem. Indoor Air 12:33–46
Lahtinen M, Huuhtanen P, Vahamaki K, Kahkonen E, Mussalo-Rauhamaa H, Reijula K (2004a) Good practices in managing work-related indoor air problems: a psychosocial perspective. Am J Ind Med 46:71–85
Lahtinen M, Sundman-Digert C, Reijula K (2004b) Psychosocial work environment and indoor air problems: a questionnaire as a means of problem diagnosis. Occup Environ Med 61:143–149
Larsen K, Merlo J (2005) Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. Am J Epidemiol 161:81–88
Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary
Lundin L (1999) Allergic and non-allergic students’ perception of the same high school environment. Indoor Air 9:92–102
Marmot AF, Eley J, Stafford M, Stansfeld SA, Warwick E, Marmot MG (2006) Building health: an epidemiological study of “sick building syndrome” in the Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med 63:283–289
Mendell MJ, Heath GA (2005) Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? A critical review of the literature. Indoor Air 15:27–52
Mendell MJ, Fisk WJ, Deddens JA, Seavey WG, Smith AH, Smith DF, Hodgson AT, Daisey JM, Goldman LR (1996) Elevated symptom prevalence associated with ventilation type in office buildings. Epidemiology 7:583–589
Mendell MJ, Lei-Gomez Q, Mirer AG, Seppanen O, Brunner G (2008) Risk factors in heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning systems for occupant symptoms in US office buildings: the US EPA BASE study. Indoor Air 18:301–316
Mendelson MB, Catano VM, Kelloway K (2000) The role of stress and social support in sick building syndrome. Work Stress 14:137–155
Merlo J (2003) Multilevel analytical approaches in social epidemiology: measures of health variation compared with traditional measures of association. J Epidemiol Community Health 57:550–552
Merlo J, Ostergren PO, Hagberg O, Lindstrom M, Lindgren A, Melander A, Rastam L, Berglund G (2001) Diastolic blood pressure and area of residence: multilevel versus ecological analysis of social inequity. J Epidemiol Community Health 55:791–798
Merlo J, Chaix B, Yang M, Lynch J, Rastam L (2005) A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: linking the statistical concept of clustering to the idea of contextual phenomenon. J Epidemiol Community Health 59:443–449
Merlo J, Chaix B, Ohlsson H, Beckman A, Johnell K, Hjerpe P, Rastam L, Larsen K (2006) A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health 60:290–297
Meyer HW, Wurtz H, Suadicani P, Valbjorn O, Sigsgaard T, Gyntelberg F (2004) Molds in floor dust and building-related symptoms in adolescent school children. Indoor Air 14:65–72
Milton DK, Glencross PM, Walters MD (2000) Risk of sick leave associated with outdoor air supply rate, humidification, and occupant complaints. Indoor Air 10:212–221
Nelson NA, Kaufman JD, Burt J, Karr C (1995) Health symptoms and the work environment in four nonproblem United States office buildings. Scand J Work Environ Health 21:51–59
Norback D (1995) Subjective indoor air quality in schools the influence of high room temperature, carpeting, fleecy wall materials and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Indoor Air 5:237–246
Nordstrom K, Norback D, Wieslander G (1999) Subjective indoor air quality in geriatric hospitals. Indoor Built Environ 8:49–57
Pickett KE, Pearl M (2001) Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review. J Epidemiol Community Health 55:111–122
Reijula K, Sundman-Digert C (2004) Assessment of indoor air problems at work with a questionnaire. Occup Environ Med 61:33–38
Reynolds SJ, Morey P, Gifford J, Li SM (1996) Case study of factors contributing to a crisis building. Indoor Air 6:168–180
Robert SA, Reither EN (2004) A multilevel analysis of race, community disadvantage, and body mass index among adults in the US. Soc Sci Med 59:2421–2434
Setterlind S, Larsson G (1995) The stress profile: a psychosocial approach to measuring stress. Stress Med 11:85–92
Skov P, Valbjorn O (1987) The “sick” building syndrome in the office environment: The Danish Town Hall Study. Environ Int 13:339–349
Skov P, Valbjorn O, Pedersen BV (1989) Influence of personal characteristics, job-related factors and psychosocial factors on the sick building syndrome. Danish Indoor Climate Study Group. Scand J Work Environ Health 15:286–295
Smedje G, Norback D, Edling C (1997) Subjective indoor air quality in schools in relation to exposure. Indoor Air 7:143–150
Snijders TAB, Bosker RO (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks
Stenberg B, Mild HK, Sandstrom M, Sundell J, Wall S (1993) A prevalence study of the sick building syndrome (SBS) and facial skin symptoms in office workers. Indoor Air 3:71–81
Thorn A (2000) Emergence and preservation of a chronically sick building. J Epidemiol Community Health 54:552–556
Wargocki P, Lagercrantz L, Witterseh T, Sundell J, Wyon DP, Fanger PO (2002) Subjective perceptions, symptom intensity and performance: a comparison of two independent studies, both changing similarly the pollution load in an office. Indoor Air 12:74–80
Zweers T, Preller L, Brunekreef B, Boleij JSM (1992) Health and indoor climate complaints of 7043 office workers in 61 buildings in the Netherlands. Indoor Air 2:127–136
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
The interval odds ratio (IOR-80)
The IOR-80 describes the effect of the workplace-level risk factor. Consider all possible pairs of persons with similar individual covariates, in which one person works in a workplace with a low value of the aggregate workplace risk factor and the other in a workplace with a high value of the same aggregate workplace risk factor. For all possible pairs the OR is computed and we obtain a distribution of the OR. The IOR-80 is defined as the interval centred on the median of the distribution that comprises 80% of the values of the OR. If the interval contains the value 1, it indicates that the workplace risk factor does not account for a substantial amount of the variation between the workplaces.
The lower and the upper bounds of the IOR were computed with the following formula (Larsen and Merlo 2005; Merlo et al. 2006):
where β is the regression coefficient for the workplace-level variable, VA is the workplace-level variance, and the values −1.2816 and +1.2816 are the 10th and 90th percentiles of the normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1.
The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)
The ICC is a measure of clustering often used in multilevel linear regression which gives information about the proportion of total variance in the outcome that is attributable to the area level as for instance a workplace level (Merlo et al. 2005). A high ICC indicates clustering and suggests that the workplaces are very important in understanding individual differences in outcome. Conversely, an ICC of 0 suggests that the workplace context is irrelevant in understanding individual differences in outcome. It is computed as ICC = VA/(VA + VI) where VA is the area-level variance and VI is the individual level variance (Merlo et al. 2005, 2006). In multilevel linear regression both the area-level variance and the individual level variance are expressed on the same scale, but in multilevel logistic regression these variances are not directly comparable as the area-level variance is on the logistic scale and the individual level variance is on the probability scale. Snijders and Bosker have described a method to compute the ICC in the case of logistic regression (Snijders and Bosker 1999). This method converts the individual level variance from the probability scale to the logistic scale before computing the ICC which then can be calculated with the following formula that was used in the present study:
where VA is the workplace-level variance.
In the text the intraclass correlation coefficient refers to the variances in the empty model while residual intraclass correlation coefficient refers to the variances in the models which control for the effect of explanatory variables (Snijders and Bosker 1999).
The median odds ratio (MOR)
The MOR is also a measure of clustering (Larsen and Merlo 2005; Merlo et al. 2006). Considering all possible pairs of persons with similar individual covariates but working in different workplaces, the OR of all these pairs can be computed yielding a distribution of the OR. The MOR is defined as the median value of this distribution. It corresponds to the increased risk that (in median) a person would have, if moving to another workplace with a higher risk. If MOR is equal to 1, there is no workplace variance.
The MOR was computed in the following way:
where VA is the workplace-level variance, and 0.6745 is the 75th percentile of the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brauer, C., Mikkelsen, S. The influence of individual and contextual psychosocial work factors on the perception of the indoor environment at work: a multilevel analysis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 83, 639–651 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-010-0511-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-010-0511-9