4.3 Article

Workload, work stress, and sickness absence in Swedish male and female white-collar employees

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 238-246

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14034940500327372

关键词

conflict between demands; gender differences; sickness absence; total workload; white-collar employees; work-home conflict; work stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: This study aimed to analyse, in a homogeneous population of highly educated men and women, gender differences in self-reported sickness absence as related to paid and unpaid work and combinations of these ( double exposure), as well as to perceived work stress and work-home conflict, i.e. conflict between demands from the home and work environment. Methods: A total of 743 women and 596 men, full-time working white-collar employees randomly selected from the general Swedish population aged 32-58, were assessed by a Swedish total workload instrument. The influence of conditions in paid and unpaid work and combinations of these on self-reported sickness absence was investigated by multivariate regression analyses. Analysis of variance ( ANOVA) was used to assess differences between men and women. Results: Overtime was associated with lower sickness absence, not only for men but also for women, and a double-exposure situation did not increase the risk of sick leave. Contrary to what is normally seen, conflict between demands did not emerge as a risk factor for sickness absence for women, but for men. Conclusions: Our assumption that sickness absence patterns would be more similar for white-collar men and women than for the general population was not confirmed. However, the women working most hours were also the least sick-listed and assumed less responsibility for household chores. These women were mainly in top-level positions and therefore we conclude that men and women in these high-level positions seem to share household burdens more evenly, but they can also afford to employ someone to assist in the household.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据