Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quantifying Multiple Work-Related Psychosocial Risk Factors: Proposal for a Composite Indicator Based on the COPSOQ II

  • Published:
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine national reference values for the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ II) across occupational sectors and develop a composite score to estimate the cumulative effect of multiple work-related stressors, in order to facilitate the implementation of occupational health directives on psychosocial risk assessment.

Method

Cross-sectional data was collected via an online questionnaire. The sample included 13,104 individuals and was representative of the general Hungarian adult working population in terms of gender, age, education, and occupation. Mean scores were calculated for 18 scales on work environment and for 5 outcome scales of the COPSOQ II across 18 occupational sectors. We analyzed the association between a composite psychosocial risk score (CPRS), reflecting severity of exposure to multiple risk factors, and high stress, burnout, sleep troubles, and poor self-rated health.

Results

We found occupation-related differences in the mean scores on all COPSOQ II scales. Scores on the “Stress” scale ranged from 47.9 to 56.2, with the highest mean score in accommodation and food services sector. Variability was greatest with respect to emotional demands (range 40.3–67.6) and smallest with respect to role clarity (range 70.3–75.7). The prevalence of negative health outcomes increased with the CPRS. Five risk categories were formed, for which the odds ratio of negative outcomes ranged from 1.6 to 56.5.

Conclusion

The sector-specific psychosocial risk profiles covering 18 work environmental factors can be used as a reference in organizational surveys and international comparisons. The CPRS proved to be a powerful predictor of self-reported negative health outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Levi L. Guidance on work-related stress: spice of life or kiss of death? Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2000.

  2. André MH TS, Clauwaert S, Gauthy R, Schömann I. Framework agreement on work related stress. An ETUC interpretation guide. ETUC Brussels. 2005. https://www.etuc.org/IMG/pdf/Brochure_stress_EN-3.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2015.

  3. European Social Partners (ETUC B, UEAPME and CEEP). Implementation of the European Autonomous Framework Agreement on Work-related Stress. Report adopted by the European Social Partners—adopted at the Social Dialogue Committee on 18 June 2008. European Social Partners, Brussels. 2008. http://resourcecentre.etuc.org/linked_files/documents/DSstress%20Final_ImplemReport-EN.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2015.

  4. Leka S, Jain A, Cox T, Kortum E. The development of the European framework for psychosocial risk management: PRIMA-EF. J Occup Health. 2011;53(2):137–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lippel K, Quinlan M. Regulation of psychosocial risk factors at work: an international overview. Saf Sci. 2011;49(4):543–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Hogh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire—a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005;31(6):438–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The job content questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998;3(4):322–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Marmot M, Niedhammer I, et al. The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(8):1483–99. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00351-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Siegrist J, Wege N, Puhlhofer F, Wahrendorf M. A short generic measure of work stress in the era of globalization: effort-reward imbalance. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2008; doi:10.1007/s00420-008-0384-3.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nübling M, Burr H, Moncada S, Kristensen TS, editors. COPSOQ International Network: co-operation for research and assessment of psychosocial factors at work. Public Health Forum; 2014: Elsevier.

  11. Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V, Bjorner JB. The second version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):8–24. doi:10.1177/1403494809349858.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thorsen SV, Bjorner JB. Reliability of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):25–32. doi:10.1177/1403494809349859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nubling M, Stossel U, Hasselhorn HM, Michaelis M, Hofmann F. Measuring psychological stress and strain at work—evaluation of the COPSOQ questionnaire in Germany. Psychosoc Med. 2006;3:Doc05.

  14. Nübling M, Hasselhorn H. The Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire in Germany: from the validation of the instrument to the formation of a job-specific database of psychosocial factors at work. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):120–4. doi:10.1177/1403494809353652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moncada S, Utzet M, Molinero E, Llorens C, Moreno N, Galtes A, et al. The Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire II (COPSOQ II) in Spain—a tool for psychosocial risk assessment at the workplace. Am J Ind Med. 2014;57(1):97–107. doi:10.1002/ajim.22238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Burr H, Albertsen K, Rugulies R, Hannerz H. Do dimensions from the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire predict vitality and mental health over and above the job strain and effort-reward imbalance models? Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):59–68. doi:10.1177/1403494809353436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Clausen T, Andersen LL, Holtermann A, Jorgensen AF, Aust B, Rugulies R. Do self-reported psychosocial working conditions predict low back pain after adjustment for both physical work load and depressive symptoms? A prospective study among female eldercare workers. Occup Environ Med. 2013;70(8):538–44. doi:10.1136/oemed-2012-101281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rugulies R, Aust B, Pejtersen JH. Do psychosocial work environment factors measured with scales from the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire predict register-based sickness absence of 3 weeks or more in Denmark? Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):42–50. doi:10.1177/1403494809346873.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rugulies R, Christensen KB, Borritz M, Villadsen E, Bültmann U, Kristensen TS. The contribution of the psychosocial work environment to sickness absence in human service workers: results of a 3-year follow-up study. Work & Stress. 2007;21(4):293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Aust B, Rugulies R, Finken A, Jensen C. When workplace interventions lead to negative effects: learning from failures. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):106–19. doi:10.1177/1403494809354362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Andreassen CN, Eriksen JG. The psychosocial work environment among physicians employed at Danish oncology departments in 2009. A nationwide cross-sectional study. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(1):138–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pejtersen JH, Bjorner JB, Hasle P. Determining minimally important score differences in scales of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):33–41. doi:10.1177/1403494809347024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Utzet M, Moncada S, Molinero E, Llorens C, Moreno N, Navarro A. The changing patterns of psychosocial exposures at work in the south of Europe: Spain as a labor market laboratory. Am J Ind Med. 2014;57(9):1032–42. doi:10.1002/ajim.22334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS. The development of the psychosocial work environment in Denmark from 1997 to 2005. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health. 2009:284–93.

  25. Moncada S, Pejtersen JH, Navarro A, Llorens C, Burr H, Hasle P, et al. Psychosocial work environment and its association with socioeconomic status. A comparison of Spain and Denmark. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):137–48. doi:10.1177/1403494809353825.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kristensen TS. A questionnaire is more than a questionnaire. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38(3 Suppl):149–55. doi:10.1177/1403494809354437.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nübling M, Seidler A, Garthus-Niegel S, Latza U, Wagner M, Hegewald J, et al. The Gutenberg health study: measuring psychosocial factors at work and predicting health and work-related outcomes with the ERI and the COPSOQ questionnaire. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):538. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hungarian Central Statistical Office: TEÁOR’08 methodological guideline. (Központi Statisztikai Hivatal: TEÁOR’08 módszertani útmutató, 2008.). 2008. https://www.ksh.hu/docs/files/532985.PDF. Accessed 11 Nov 2015.

  29. Nistor K, Ádám S, Cserháti Z, Szabó A, Zakor T, Stauder A. Psychometric characteristics of the Hungarian version of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire II (COPSOQ II) (in Hungarian; a Koppenhágai Kérdőív a Munkahelyi Pszichoszociális Tényezőkről II (COPSOQ II) magyar verziójának pszichometriai jellemzői). Mentálhigiéné és Pszichoszomatika. 2015;16(2):179–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. du Prel J-B, Peter R. Work-family conflict as a mediator in the association between work stress and depressive symptoms: cross-sectional evidence from the German lidA-cohort study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2014;88(3):359–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Safety and health topics: workplace violence. United States Department Of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/workplaceviolence/. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.

  33. Deming WE, Stephan FF. On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known. 1940:427–44. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177731829.

  34. Moncada Lluís S, Llorens Serrano C, Font Corominas A, Galtés Camps A, Navarro GA. Exposición a riesgos psicosociales entre la población asalariada en España (2004-05): valores de referencia de las 21 dimensiones del cuestionario COPSOQ ISTAS21. Revista española de salud pública. 2008;82(6):667–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yeh Y-C, Lin BY-J, Lin W-H, Wan TT. Job stress: its relationship to hospital pharmacists’ insomnia and work outcomes. International journal of behavioral medicine. 2010;17(2):143–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Freimann T, Merisalu E. Work-related psychosocial risk factors and mental health problems amongst nurses at a university hospital in Estonia: a cross-sectional study. Scandinavian journal of public health. 2015:1403494815579477.

  37. Dupret E, Bocerean C, Teherani M, Feltrin M, Pejtersen JH. Psychosocial risk assessment: French validation of the Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ). Scand J Public Health. 2012;40(5):482–90. doi:10.1177/1403494812453888.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy work: stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic books; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Schilling EA, Aseltine RH, Gore S. The impact of cumulative childhood adversity on young adult mental health: measures, models, and interpretations. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(5):1140–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Stratton I, Cull C, Adler A, Matthews D, Neil H, Holman R. Additive effects of glycaemia and blood pressure exposure on risk of complications in type 2 diabetes: a prospective observational study (UKPDS 75). Diabetologia. 2006;49(8):1761–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Eurofound-EU-OSHA. Psychosocial risks in Europe: prevalence and strategies for prevention. Office of the European Union, Luxemburg. 2014. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1443en_0.pdf Accessed 09 Jan 2017.

  42. Wijndaele K, Matton L, Duvigneaud N, Lefevre J, Duquet W, Thomis M, et al. Reliability, equivalence and respondent preference of computerized versus paper-and-pencil mental health questionnaires. Comput Hum Behav. 2007;23(4):1958–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Eurostat. Individuals regularly using the internet. 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tin00091. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The development of the Hungarian version of the COPSOQ II questionnaire was supported by grant OMMF-11-0104 from the Hungarian Labor Inspectorate. We would like to thank Dávid Jakus for the programming of the very user-friendly online questionnaire and to Peter P. Újma for the data weighting.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Behavioral Sciences, Semmelweis University, Nagyvárad tér 4, Budapest, 1089, Hungary

    Adrienne Stauder, Katalin Nistor, Anikó Nistor, Szilvia Ádám & Barna Konkolÿ Thege

  2. School of PhD Studies, Doctoral School of Mental Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, Üllői street 26, Budapest, 1085, Hungary

    Katalin Nistor & Anikó Nistor

  3. LifeControl Centre, Bulcsú u. 19, Budapest, 1134, Hungary

    Tünde Zakor & Anita Szabó

  4. Research and Academics Division, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, 500 Church Street, Penetanguishene, ON, L9M 1G3, Canada

    Barna Konkolÿ Thege

Authors
  1. Adrienne Stauder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katalin Nistor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tünde Zakor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anita Szabó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anikó Nistor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Szilvia Ádám
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Barna Konkolÿ Thege
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrienne Stauder.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stauder, A., Nistor, K., Zakor, T. et al. Quantifying Multiple Work-Related Psychosocial Risk Factors: Proposal for a Composite Indicator Based on the COPSOQ II. Int.J. Behav. Med. 24, 915–926 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-017-9651-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-017-9651-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation