Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 106, Issue 4, pp e223–e229 | Cite as

Genre, âge, catégorie professionnelle, secteur économique et santé mentale en milieu de travail: les résultats de l’étude SALVEO

  • Alain MarchandEmail author
  • Marie-Eve Blanc
  • Pierre Durand
Recherche Quantitative
  • 1 Downloads

Résumé

Objectifs

Cet article examine la contribution du genre, de l’âge, de la catégorie professionnelle et du secteur économique sur la détresse psychologique, la dépression et l’épuisement professionnel.

Méthode

Les données proviennent de l’étude SALVEO menée en 2009–2012 auprès de 63 établissements et 2 162 travailleurs canadiens. Des modèles multiniveaux de régression logistique ont été estimés sur l’échantillon total et pour les hommes et les femmes séparément.

Résultats

La prévalence de la détresse psychologique atteint 23,8 %, la dépression 5,8 % et l’épuisement professionnel 3,9 %. Les problèmes de santé mentale varient entre les établissements, mais cette variation est plus forte pour l’épuisement professionnel. Les différences hommes-femmes sont significatives seulement pour la détresse psychologique, la dépression et l’épuisement émotionnel. La catégorie personnels et ouvriers non-qualifiés s’avère plus particulièrement à risque pour la dépression et l’épuisement professionnel. Les associations entre l’âge, la catégorie professionnelle et le secteur économique ne sont pas les mêmes selon le genre.

Conclusion

Les résultats de l’étude SALVEO mettent en évidence des problèmes importants de santé mentale qui varient entre les établissements, et des différences dans la Symptomatologie selon le genre, l’âge, la catégorie professionnelle et le secteur économique, ainsi que des profils de relations différenciés selon le genre. Ces résultats pointent vers le développement d’approches plus ciblées pour la prévention et l’intervention en entreprise.

Mots Clés

prévalence santé mentale genre analyses multiniveaux professions secteurs économiques 

Abstract

Objectives

This article examined the contribution of gender, age, occupation and economic sector on psychological distress, depression and burnout.

Methods

The data came from the SALVEO study carried out in 2009–2012 among 2,162 workers employed in 63 Canadian workplaces. Multilevel logistic regression models were estimated on the total sample and separately for men and women.

Results

The prevalences of psychological distress, depression and burnout were 23.8%, 5.8% and 3.9% respectively. Mental health problems varied between workplaces, but variations between workplaces were stronger for burnout. Differences between men and women were significant only for psychological distress, depression, and emotional exhaustion. Unskilled workers were found more at risk for depression and burnout. Associations among age, occupation and economic sector were not the same between genders.

Conclusion

Results from the SALVEO study highlight important mental health problems in workers that vary between workplaces, and that differences in symptomatology are associated with gender, age, occupation and economic sector. Gender reveals differentiated profiles of relationships. These results point towards the development of targeted approaches to the prevention of and intervention on mental health problems in workplaces.

Key words

Prevalence mental health gender multilevel analyses occupations economic sector 

Références

  1. 1.
    Marchand A, Blanc M-E. Occupation, work organisation conditions and the development of chronic psychological distress. Work 2011;40(4):425–35. PMID: 22130060. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2011-1254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gilmour H, Patten SB. Depression and work impairment. Health Rep 2007;18(1):9–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Conference Board of Canada. Mental Health Issues in the Labour Force: Reducing the Economic Impact on Canada. Ottawa (Ontario): Conference Board of Canada, 2012, p. 27.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferrari AJ, Charlson FJ, Norman RE, Patten SB, Freedman G, Murray CJ, et coll. Burden of depressive disorders by country, sex, age, and year: Findings from the global burden of disease study 2010. PLoS Med 2013;10(11):e1001547. PMID: 24223526. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norlund S. Psychosocial work factors and burnout. A study of a working general population and patients at a stress rehabilitation clinic, in Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Umea, Sweden: Umea University, Sweden, 2011, p. 53.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Statistics Netherlands. More employed develop burnout symptoms. Sur Internet: https://doi.org/www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2011/2011-3493-wm.htm (consulté le 26 octobre 2011).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marchand A. Mental health in Canada: Are there any risky occupations and industries? Int J Law Psychiatry 2007;30(4-5):272–83. PMID: 17669492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vézina M, Cloutier E, Stock S, Lippel K, Fortin É, Delisle A, et coll. Enquête québécoise sur des conditions de travail, d’emploi, et de santé et de sécurité du travail (EQCOTESST). Québec (Québec): Institut de recherche Robert- Sauvé en santé sécurité du travail, Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec, Institut de la Statistique du Québec, 2011.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fushimi M, Saito S, Shimizu T, Kudo Y, Seki M, Murata K. Prevalence of psychological distress, as measured by the Kessler 6 (K6), and related factors in Japanese employees. Community Ment Health J 2012;48(3):328–35. PMID: 21547569. doi: 10.1007/sl0597-011-9416-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lavoie-Tremblay M, Bonin JP, Lesage AD, Bonneville-Roussy A, Lavigne GL, Laroche D. Contribution of the psychosocial work environment to psychological distress among health care professionals before and during a major organizational change. Health Care Manag (Frederick) 2010;29(4):293–304. PMID: 21045581. doi: 10.1097/HCM.0b013e3181fa022e.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bourbonnais R, Brisson C, Vezina M. Health care restructuring, work environment, and health of nurses. Am J Ind Med 2005;47(1):54–64. PMID: 15597361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hilton MF, Whiteford HA. Employee psychological distress and treated prevalence by indices of rurality. Aust N Z J Public Health 2010;34(5):458–65. PMID: 21040172. doi: 10.HH/j.1753-6405.2010.00590.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stansfeld SA, Shipley MJ, Head J, Fuhrer R. Repeated job strain and the risk of depression: Longitudinal analyses from the Whitehall II study. Am J Public Health 2012;102(12):2360–66. PMID: 23078508. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loeppke R, Taitel M, Haufle V, Parry T, Kessler RC, Jinnett K. Health and productivity as a business strategy: A multiemployer study. J Occup Environ Med 2009;51(4):411–28. PMID: 19339899. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181a39180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Al-Dubai SA, Rampal KG. Prevalence and associated factors of burnout among doctors in Yemen. J Occup Health 2010;52(1):58–65. PMID: 19907108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marchand A, Demers A, Durand P. Do occupation and work conditions really matter? A longitudinal analysis of psychological distress experiences among Canadian workers. Soc Health Illness 2005;27(5):602–27. PMID: 16078903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marchand A, Durand P, Haines V, 3rd, Harvey S. The multilevel determinants of workers’ mental health: Results from the SALVEO study. Soc Psychiat Psychiatric Epidemiol 2015;50(3):445–59. PMID: 25056237. doi: 10.1007/s00127-014-0932-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baruch Y, Holtom BC. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relat 2008;61(8):1139–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McDowell I. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldberg DP, Gater R, Sartorius N, Ustun TB, Piccinelli M, Gureje O, et coll. The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychol Med 1997;27(1):191–97. PMID: 9122299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. BDI-II. Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Maslach C, Jackson SE, et coll. The Maslach Burnout Inventory-general survey. Dans: Maslach C, Jackson SE, Leiter MP (Rédacteurs), MBI Manual. Palo Alto (Californie): Consulting Psychologists Press, 1996; 19–26.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP, 2013.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang J, Schmitz N. Does job strain interact with psychosocial factors outside of the workplace in relation to the risk of major depression? The Canadian National Population Health Survey. Soc Psychiat Psychiatric Epidemiol 2011;46(7):577–84. PMID: 20407888. doi: 10.1007/s00127-010-0224-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lizano EL, Mor Barak ME. Workplace demands and resources as antecedents of job burnout among public child welfare workers: A longitudinal study. Child Youth Serv Rev 2012;34(9):1769–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lings I, Durden G, Lee N, Cadogan JW. Socio-emotional and operational demands on service employees. J Business Res 2014;67(10):2132–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stansfeld SA, Candy B. Psychosocial work and environment and mental health: A meta-analytic review. Scand J Work, Environ Health 2006;32(6): 443–62. PMID: 17173201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Elwer S, Johansson K, Hammarstrom A. Workplace gender composition and psychological distress: The importance of the psychosocial work environment. BMC Public Health 2014;14(1):241. PMID: 24612791. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Marchand
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marie-Eve Blanc
    • 2
  • Pierre Durand
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.École de relations industriellesUniversité de Montréal, Pavillon Lionel-CroulxMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Institut de recherche en santé publique de l’Université de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations