3.8 Article

The moderating effect of alcohol intake on the relationship between work strains and psychological distress

Journal

JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages 419-427

Publisher

ALCOHOL RES DOCUMENTATION INC CENT ALCOHOL STUD RUTGERS UNIV
DOI: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.419

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study investigated the extent to which alcohol intake modified the associations between psychological distress and work strains. Method: The data were obtained from a sample of 10,387 employees nested in 422 occupations. Four types of alcohol drinkers were defined according to drinker status measured by alcohol intake over the last week: (1) abstainers, (2) drinkers who abstained from drinking in the last seven days, (3) low-risk drinkers (according to the Canadian guidelines), (4) high-risk drinkers. The Ilfeld scale was used to measure the level of psychological distress (referencing the last week). Work strains were measured according to Karasek's skills utilization, decision authority and psychological demands, as well as by regularity of work schedule, number of working hours per week, exposure to physical and chemical risks, job status and type of remuneration. Multilevel logistic regressions were conducted with adjustments for gender and age. Results: 6.1% of the logit variance of psychological distress was between occupations. Alcohol intake showed a U-shaped relationship with psychological distress, and it was a moderator of skills utilization and exposure to physical risks. Decision authority, psychological demands, work schedule, gender and age were linked to psychological distress. Conclusions: Moderate alcohol intake is not associated with psychological distress and does not intensify the effect of work strains. The results give some support to the positive effect of moderate alcohol consumption on stress reduction and mental health.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available