4.2 Article

Resilience as a Protective Factor for Suicidal Ideation among Korean Workers

Journal

PSYCHIATRY INVESTIGATION
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 147-156

Publisher

KOREAN NEUROPSYCHIATRIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.30773/pi.2019.0072

Keywords

Psychological resilience; Workplaces; Occupational health; Protective factor; Suicidal ideation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective This study aimed to investigate resilience as a protective factor for suicidality among Korean workers. Methods Participants were workers from 26 organizations in Korea, aged 18 to 63 years, who completed a self-reported questionnaire comprising items on sociodemographic factors, job stress, resilience, and suicidality. Completed questionnaires were collected from 4,405 persons, with 4,389 valid responses. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were performed using suicidality as the dependent variable. Results Results of the logistic regression analyses indicated that among the sociodemographic factors, older age, being female, and being single were statistically significantly associated with suicidal ideation. A high level of job stress, depressive mood, and anxiety, in addition to a short job duration, were also associated with suicidal ideation. Resilience was a significant protective factor for suicidal ideation after adjusting for all other variables. Older age and high anxiety levels were associated with having a suicide plan among participants with suicidal ideation. The association of resilience with suicide plans and suicide attempts was non-significant. Conclusion In this study, we found that a high level of resilience was associated with a low incidence of suicidal ideation in Korean workers. Based on these results, we suggest the need to develop and implement interventions to improve resilience in the workplace, thereby protecting workers, especially those with a high level of work stress, from suicidal ideation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available