The influence of individual and contextual psychosocial work factors on the perception of the indoor environment at work: a multilevel analysis

Original Article

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.

Keywords

Sick building Indoor environment Perception Job satisfaction Multilevel analysis 

References

  1. Andersson K (1998) Epidemiological approach to indoor air problems. Indoor Air Suppl 4: 32–39Google Scholar
  2. 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 49:641–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 6:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brauer C, Mikkelsen S (2003) The context of a study influences the reporting of symptoms. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76:621–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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, 1–73Google Scholar
  6. 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 79:453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brauer C, Kolstad H, Orbaek P, Mikkelsen S (2006b) The sick building syndrome: a chicken and egg situation? Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79:465–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burge S, Hedge A, Wilson S, Bass JH, Robertson A (1987) Sick building syndrome: a study of 4373 office workers. Ann Occup Hyg 31:493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurements 37–46Google Scholar
  10. Diez-Roux AV (2000) Multilevel analysis in public health research. Annu Rev Public Health 21:171–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 56:813–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lahtinen M, Huuhtanen P, Kahkonen E, Reijula K (2002) Psychosocial dimensions of solving an indoor air problem. Indoor Air 12:33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 46:71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 61:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 161:81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  18. Lundin L (1999) Allergic and non-allergic students’ perception of the same high school environment. Indoor Air 9:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 63:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mendell MJ, Heath GA (2005) Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? A critical review of the literature. Indoor Air 15:27–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 7:583–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 18:301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mendelson MB, Catano VM, Kelloway K (2000) The role of stress and social support in sick building syndrome. Work Stress 14:137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Merlo J (2003) Multilevel analytical approaches in social epidemiology: measures of health variation compared with traditional measures of association. J Epidemiol Community Health 57:550–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 55:791–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 59:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 60:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 14:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Milton DK, Glencross PM, Walters MD (2000) Risk of sick leave associated with outdoor air supply rate, humidification, and occupant complaints. Indoor Air 10:212–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 21:51–59Google Scholar
  31. 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 5:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nordstrom K, Norback D, Wieslander G (1999) Subjective indoor air quality in geriatric hospitals. Indoor Built Environ 8:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pickett KE, Pearl M (2001) Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review. J Epidemiol Community Health 55:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reijula K, Sundman-Digert C (2004) Assessment of indoor air problems at work with a questionnaire. Occup Environ Med 61:33–38Google Scholar
  35. Reynolds SJ, Morey P, Gifford J, Li SM (1996) Case study of factors contributing to a crisis building. Indoor Air 6:168–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robert SA, Reither EN (2004) A multilevel analysis of race, community disadvantage, and body mass index among adults in the US. Soc Sci Med 59:2421–2434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Setterlind S, Larsson G (1995) The stress profile: a psychosocial approach to measuring stress. Stress Med 11:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Skov P, Valbjorn O (1987) The “sick” building syndrome in the office environment: The Danish Town Hall Study. Environ Int 13:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 15:286–295Google Scholar
  40. Smedje G, Norback D, Edling C (1997) Subjective indoor air quality in schools in relation to exposure. Indoor Air 7:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Snijders TAB, Bosker RO (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications Ltd, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 3:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thorn A (2000) Emergence and preservation of a chronically sick building. J Epidemiol Community Health 54:552–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 12:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 2:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Occupational MedicineCopenhagen University HospitalGlostrupDenmark
  2. 2.Arbejdsmedicinsk KlinikGlostrup HospitalGlostrupDenmark

Personalised recommendations