Abstract
Objective
Analyze the effect of work organization and demands, violence, health problems and job satisfaction in relation to work stress and social support in prison officers.
Methods
This is a cross-sectional study with prison police officers from four penitentiaries in São Paulo. The Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire was used and adjusted multinomial regressions were performed to obtain the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI).
Results
A total of 265 prison officers participated in the study, and poor satisfaction levels with temperature (OR 4.88; 95%CI 2.02; 11.81) and ventilation (OR 3.12; 95%CI 1.31; 7.41) were found to be associated with high-demand work. Furthermore, working more than 15 years as a prison officer (OR 2.59; 95%CI 1.33; 5.08), reporting physical violence (OR 2.84; 95%CI 1.02; 7.93), psychological violence (OR 2.93; 95%CI 1.55; 5.53), poor satisfaction level with lighting (OR 2.80; 95%CI 1.11; 7.08), noise (OR 3.94; 95%CI 2.15; 7.21), ventilation (OR 2.15; 95%CI 1.20; 3.85), and furniture (OR 2.92; 95%CI 1.52; 5.60) in the workplace were associated with lower social support.
Conclusion
The worst level of satisfaction with temperature and ventilation was associated with highly demanding work. Furthermore, suffering violence, greater physical demands, and a lower level of satisfaction with workplace conditions were associated with less social support. The need for improvements in infrastructure and in the organization of the work process is highlighted.
Keywords: Occupational Stress, Social Support, Working Conditions, Safety, Cross-Sectional Studies
Resumen
Objetivo
Analizar el efecto de la organización y exigencias del trabajo, la violencia, los problemas de salud y la satisfacción laboral en relación con el estrés laboral y el apoyo social en agentes de policía penitenciaria.
Métodos
Se trata de un estudio transversal con agentes de policía penitenciaria de cuatro penitenciarías de São Paulo. Se utilizó el Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire y se realizaron regresiones multinomiales ajustadas para obtener la razón de probabilidades (odds ratio, OR) y el intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC95%).
Resultados
Participaron en el estudio 265 funcionarios de prisiones y se identificó que los bajos niveles de satisfacción con la temperatura (OR 4,88; IC95% 2,02; 11,81) y la ventilación (OR 3,12; IC95% 1,31; 7,41) se asociaron con trabajo de alto esfuerzo. Además, trabajar más de 15 años como agente de policía penitenciario (OR 2,59; IC95% 1,33; 5,08), reportar violencia física (OR 2,84; IC95% 1,02; 7,93), violencia psicológica (OR 2,93; IC95% 1,55; 5,53), bajo nivel de satisfacción con la iluminación (OR 2,80; IC95% 1,11; 7,08), ruido (OR 3,94; IC95% 2,15; 7,21), ventilación (OR 2,15; IC95% 1,20; 3,85) y mobiliario (OR 2,92; IC95% 1,52; 5,60) en el entorno de trabajo se asociaron con un menor apoyo social.
Conclusión
El peor nivel de satisfacción con la temperatura y la ventilación se asoció con trabajos altamente exigentes. Además, sufrir violencia, mayores exigencias físicas y un menor nivel de satisfacción con las condiciones del entorno laboral se asociaron con un menor apoyo social. Se destaca la necesidad de mejoras en la infraestructura y en la organización del proceso de trabajo.
Palabras clave: Estrés Laboral, Apoyo Social, Condiciones de Trabajo, Seguridad, Estudios Transversales
Ethical aspects
This research respected ethical principles, having obtained the following approval data:
Research Ethics Committee: Universidade Estadual de Londrina
Opinion number: 2.826.580
Approval date: 16/8/2018
Certificate of Submission for Ethical Appraisal: 87250718.7.3003.5563
Informed Consent Form: Obtained from all participants prior to collection.
Introduction
The penitentiary system is responsible for, among other duties, managing the enforcement of prison sentences handed down by the courts (1,2), holding a total of 832,295 people in Brazil at the end of 2022, 94.5% of whom are male (2). To this end, in December 2022, this system had more than 120,000 professional prison officers (2) carrying out their activities in a place designed and built so that control and hierarchy are respected, but which is paradoxically unstable, as it depends on the dynamics and relationships between prison officers and persons deprived of liberty (1,3). Thus, the workplace of prison officers is marked by unhealthiness and dangerousness (4,5), a context that can change the way in which working conditions influence occupational stress (6).
Although there is no consensus (7), when it comes specifically to prison officers, Cullen and collaborators define occupational stress as negative repercussions on mental health, such as psychological suffering (8), resulting from a process in which work demands exceed the workers’ ability to adapt (9). The dynamics are affected by other variables, with emphasis on the control that workers can (or cannot) exercise over their work process (9) and social support, which can mitigate the effects of work demands (10).
Due to its importance, occupational stress, coexistence of greater work demands and less control over this process, commonly called high-strain work (11,12), has been associated with psychiatric symptoms, emotional exhaustion, mental suffering, and worse professional achievement (13). The possible mechanisms for this association arise from psychological changes (fear, tension, and anxiety), physiological changes (changes in cortisol, catecholamines, and interleukin-6), psychosomatic changes (sleep disorders, headache, and fatigue), and changes in the immune, cardiovascular and metabolic systems, which can increase the chances of disease and mortality (14,15).
Considering the complexity of the topic and the impacts on workers’ health, in addition to harm reduction actions (5), measures are needed to identify which work factors influence high-demand work. Thus, high-demand work is a dependent variable in studies (5,6,16). However, most studies conducted on occupational stress with prison officers happen in countries with prison system conditions that are very different from those in Brazil, such as the United States and European nations (5). In these countries, high exposure to violence, work overload and role conflict between custody and rehabilitation are emphasized as plausible causes of occupational stress, and burnout, anxiety, and cardiovascular diseases as possible repercussions on the health of prison officers (5).
In Brazil, studies focus mainly on the psychosocial impacts of stress, precarious working conditions, and professional stigma. The findings of this study reinforce work overload, job insecurity and lack of institutional support as risk factors. Unlike what happens in other countries, systemic negligence and the absence of public policies aimed at the mental health of prison officers stand out in Brazil (5). Added to this context is the fact that, in Brazil, 83.2% of workers in the prison system are male (2), that is, these are individuals who, for the most part, have less access to health services (17), and, therefore, could benefit more from the identification of factors that may increase work-related stress and strategies that aim to reduce its effects on workers’ health.
Given this panorama, and considering the importance of this professional category and the need for a better understanding of occupational variables in highly demanding work, this study aims to analyze the effect of work organization and demands, violence, health problems and job satisfaction in relation to work stress and social support in prison police officers.
Method
Study design
This is a cross-sectional study, conducted between January and August 2019.
Context
The study was conducted in four penitentiaries in the western region of the state of São Paulo, in the municipalities of Assis, Florínea, Martinópolis and Paraguaçu Paulista. The research was part of the “AGEPEN Study: Working conditions, mental health and sleep among prison officers in the State of São Paulo” (18,19), which selected, for convenience, four penitentiaries of similar size, intended exclusively for male individuals deprived of liberty, to conduct the study with these professionals.
Participants
The survey inclueded all prison officers who met the inclusion criteria: being male and having worked for six months or more as prison officers in the units surveyed. Prison officers who were not interviewed and those who presented incomplete records on the study variables were considered as losses. For the study, individuals with less than 12 months of experience in the profession were excluded from data analysis. Data collection took place throughout the working day, with an explanation of the research objectives being given to all teams and shifts at the start of the workday, and then, for those who agreed to participate, the Informed Consent Formulary was given and explained. The prison officers who signed and returned the form received a structured anonymous questionnaire, along with a brown envelope, in which they had to deposit the completed material, which was collected at the end of the shift.
Variables
The sociodemographic characterization was composed of age (continuous), education (dichotomized into high school; and higher education - completed higher education, postgraduate or master’s/doctorate) and cohabitation (lives with a partner: married or in a stable union; lives without a partner: single, widowed or divorced).
The independent variables were the occupational aspects: years of work as a prison officer (continuous and categorized as ≤15 years and >15 years; dichotomized based on the median), the work sector (dichotomized into administrative: without contact with persons deprived of liberty [administrative, IT, human resources, among other administrative areas]; or operational: with contact [gatekeeping, prison cell, reception, discipline, fleet, among other sectors in contact with persons deprived of liberty]), work shift in the penitentiary (daily worker 8h/day; night shift worker 12h/36h; or daily shift worker 12h/36h), mental and physical demands (low/moderate or high), health conditions (yes/no) related to work as a prison officer (any illness, accident, injury or other health problem) in the 12 months preceding the survey, having suffered in the 12 months preceding the survey any psychological violence (teasing or humiliating/embarrassing situations, moral harassment or threat to physical or family integrity) or physical violence (physical aggression, with sharp or firearm weapons) (yes/no), and the degree of satisfaction with working conditions – temperature, lighting, noise, ventilation, hygiene and furniture (dichotomized as bad; or regular/good).
Data sources and measurement
Occupational stress was measured using the Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire (20). The validated version with adequate psychometric properties in Portuguese, used in the research, has 17 questions, five to assess psychological demand at work, six to assess control over work and six to assess social support (20). In the present study, the quadrant analysis was performed by adding the scores of each dimension, and subsequently dividing them into two categories based on the median (11,20,21). Thus, cut-off points were values greater than 14 as high demand, greater than 15 points as self-control at work, and greater than 17 points as high social support. The results obtained were combined as recommended as the four categories of the demand-control model: high demand (high demand and low control), active work (high demand and high control), passive work (low demand and low control) and low demand (low demand and high control). For the analysis, the reference group adopted was the low-demand work group. The dimension of social support was dichotomized into low and high, with high social support being considered as the reference category.
Bias control
The formulation of the research questionnaire was preceded by checking the literature for validated instruments and questions for inclusion in the research, such as the Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire. Questions that were not extracted from validated instruments were assessed by a committee of epidemiology experts, composed of two doctoral students in public health and five professors, all with doctorates in Public Health. The definitive version was approved by consensus by the experts committee.
Regarding the collection strategies, this was preceded by a pilot study in a prison unit, in which these strategies were improved, so that the prison officers could be assured as to the confidentiality and anonymity of the research. The instruments were entered in duplicate using the Epi Info 3.5.4 software, with subsequent consolidation and correction of any inconsistencies. Finally, statistical analyses were adjusted for possible confounding variables, as detailed in the statistical methods.
Study size and sample
The study did not provide an estimate for sample size, as it sought to interview all prison officers in the included penitentiaries. During the study period, a total of 566 prison officers were registered in the four penitentiaries included. Of these, 213 (37.6%) were considered losses (82 were on leave, 36 prison officers could not be located after three attempts, and 95 refused to participate in the study), resulting in a response rate of 62.4% (n=353). Furthermore, 87 (15.4%) prison officers left one or more variables in the study incomplete, and were therefore considered losses, and one had been in the profession for less than 12 months, and was excluded from the analyses, resulting in a study sample of 265 (46.8%) prison officers.
Statistical methods
The analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science software, version 25.0. Absolute and relative frequencies (categorical variables) were presented, as well as mean and standard deviation (for age). Aiming to identify possible associations that could alter the analyses of occupational factors and occupational stress, an assessment was conducted of the possible association of the characterization variables in relation to the dependent variables. The chi-square test was used for categorical variables, the Kruskal-Wallis test for the demand-control quadrant and the Mann-Whitney test for the dichotomization of social support (continuous variables with non-parametric distribution according to the Shapiro-Wilk test). Additionally, Spearman’s correlation test was performed between the characterization and occupational variables in relation to the sum of the dimensions of demand, control, and social support. For this analysis, age in years (continuous variable) was considered, while categorical variables were evaluated based on the numbers 1 and 2, being for education secondary education and higher education, and for cohabitation, without a partner and with a partner, respectively.
The effect of occupational variables on occupational stress was assessed using multinomial logistic regression models in relation to the demand-control and social support model, with calculation of the odds ratios (OR) value and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Crude models (not shown) and adjusted models were performed for variables that have an effect in the literature (age, education) (5) or in the present research (cohabitation) with the dependent variables, as well as the inclusion of social support (continuous) as an adjustment for the analyses in which the demand-control model was the dependent variable, and the demand-control model as an adjustment for the analyses in which social support was the dependent variable (16,20).
Results
The general profile of the participating prison officers identified that the majority were 45 years old or younger (54.7%), had a partner (86.8%) and had a secondary level of education (55.5%). The mean age was 44.5 ± 7.9 years, with no difference in age distribution among participants when stratified according to the demand-control model (p-value 0.223) or social support (p-value 0.487). Regarding distribution of the quadrants, 24.5% of prison officers were classified as high-demand work; 30.9%, passive work; 20.8%, active work; and 23.8%, low-demand work. Regarding social support, 55.8% of participants scored ≤17 and were classified as having lower social support (Table 1).
Table 1. Absolute (n) and relative (%) frequencies, and results of the chi-square test of sociodemographic characteristics by study variables. São Paulo, 2019 (n=265).
| Demand-control model | Social support | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Total n | High demand n (%) | Passive n (%) | Active n (%) | Low demand n (%) | p-value | Low n (%) | High n (%) | p-value |
| Education | 0.106 | 0.441 | |||||||
| High school | 147 | 33 (22.4) | 47 (32,0) | 25 (17.0) | 42 (28.6) | 79 (53.7) | 68 (46.3) | ||
| Higher education | 118 | 32 (27.1) | 35 (29.7) | 30 (25.4) | 21 (17.8) | 69 (58.5) | 49 (41.5) | ||
| Cohabitation | 0.228 | 0.002 | |||||||
| Without a partner | 35 | 4 (11.4) | 13 (37.2) | 7 (20.0) | 11 (31.4) | 11 (31.4) | 24 (68.6) | ||
| With a partner | 230 | 61 (26.5) | 69 (30.0) | 48 (20.9) | 52 (22.6) | 137 (59.6) | 93 (40.4) | ||
Among the sociodemographic variables investigated, having a partner showed a higher frequency of individuals classified as having lower social support (Table 1) and an effect compatible with the decrease in the continuous score of social support (Table 2). Increasing age had an effect compatible with a decrease in the work demand score, while having higher education had an effect compatible with an increase in the work demand score and a decrease in the social support score (Table 2).
Table 2. Spearman correlation to estimate the correlation coefficient (rho) and p-value, between sociodemographic variables and continuous score of the dimensions demand, control, and social support. São Paulo, 2019 (n=265).
| Variables | Age Rho; p-value | Education Rho; p-value | Cohabitation Rho; p-value | Demand Rho; p-value | Control Rho; p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | - | ||||
| Education | -0.112; 0.069 | - | |||
| Cohabitation | 0.006; 0.917 | 0.036; 0.565 | - | ||
| Demand | -0.136; 0.027 | 0.145; 0.019 | 0.117; 0.057 | - | |
| Control | -0.022; 0.719 | -0.050; 0.418 | -0.063; 0.310 | 0.115; 0.060 | - |
| Support | -0.018; 0.770 | -0.126; 0.040 | -0.230; <0.001 | -0.271; <0.001 | 0.289; <0.001 |
Prison officers who rated their level of satisfaction with the temperature and ventilation of their workplace as poor showed a higher frequency of highly demanding work (Table 3), with a correlation between the poor level of satisfaction and the lowest score in the control over work score (Table 2). The lowest level of social support was observed mainly in individuals with more than 15 years in this occupation, who reported having suffered physical and psychological violence and who evaluated the level of satisfaction with the conditions of the workplace as poor.
Table 3. Absolute (n) and relative (%) frequencies of occupational characteristics by study variables. São Paulo, 2019 (n=265).
| Demand-control model | Social support | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | High demand n (%) | Passive n (%) | Active n (%) | Low demand n (%) | Low n (%) | High n (%) | |
| Years of experience as a prison officer | |||||||
| ≤15 years | 29 (25.4) | 35 (30.7) | 24 (21.1) | 26 (22.8) | 54 (47.4) | 60 (52.6) | |
| >15 years | 36 (23.9) | 47 (31.1) | 31 (20.5) | 37 (24.5) | 94 (62.3) | 57 (37.7) | |
| Work sector | |||||||
| Operational | 51 (26.2) | 65 (33.3) | 36 (18.4) | 43 (22.1) | 113 (57.9) | 82 (42.1) | |
| Administrative | 14 (20.0) | 17 (24.3) | 19 (27.1) | 20 (28.6) | 35 (50.0) | 35 (50.0) | |
| Work shift | |||||||
| Night shift duty | 23 (26.7) | 33 (38.4) | 4 (4,7) | 26 (30.2) | 49 (57.0) | 37 (43.0) | |
| Day shift duty | 28 (23.5) | 34 (28.6) | 26 (21.8) | 31 (26.1) | 66 (55.5) | 53 (44.5) | |
| Daily worker | 14 (23.3) | 15 (25.0) | 25 (41.7) | 6 (10.0) | 33 (55.0) | 27 (45.0) | |
| Physical demands | |||||||
| High | 57 (28.7) | 49 (24.6) | 52 (26.1) | 41 (20.6) | 119 (59.8) | 80 (40.2) | |
| Low/moderate | 8 (12,1) | 33 (50.0) | 3 (4.5) | 22 (33.4) | 29 (43.9) | 37 (56.1) | |
| Mental demands | |||||||
| High | 13 (36.1) | 2 (5,5) | 11 (30.6) | 10 (27.8) | 22 (61.1) | 14 (38.9) | |
| Low/moderate | 52 (22.8) | 80 (34.9) | 44 (19.2) | 53 (23.1) | 126 (55.0) | 103 (45.0) | |
| Work-related health condition | |||||||
| Yes | 17 (34.7) | 13 (26.5) | 9 (20.4) | 10 (20.4) | 31 (63.3) | 18 (36.7) | |
| No | 48 (22.2) | 69 (31.9) | 46 (21.3) | 53 (24.6) | 117 (54.2) | 99 (45.8) | |
| Psychological Violence | |||||||
| Yes | 26 (32.5) | 17 (21.3) | 23 (28.7) | 14 (17.5) | 60 (75.0) | 20 (25.0) | |
| No | 39 (21.1) | 65 (35.1) | 32 (17.3) | 49 (26.5) | 88 (47.6) | 97 (52.4) | |
| Physical Violence | |||||||
| Yes | 9 (36.0) | 5 (20.0) | 4 (16,0) | 7 (28.0) | 19 (76.0) | 6 (24.0) | |
| No | 56 (23.3) | 77 (32.1) | 51 (21.3) | 56 (23.3) | 129 (53.8) | 111 (46.2) | |
| Satisfaction with the workplace temperature | |||||||
| Bad | 35 (35.4) | 37 (37.4) | 16 (16.2) | 11 (11.0) | 67 (67.7) | 32 (32.3) | |
| Good/average | 30 (18.1) | 45 (27.1) | 39 (23.5) | 52 (31.3) | 81 (48.8) | 85 (51.2) | |
| Satisfaction with workplace lighting | |||||||
| Bad | 15 (41.7) | 11 (30.6) | 7 (19.4) | 3 (8,3) | 29 (80.6) | 7 (18.4) | |
| Good/average | 50 (21.8) | 71 (31.0) | 48 (21.0) | 60 (26.2) | 119 (52.0) | 110 (48.0) | |
| Satisfaction with the noise level in the workplace | |||||||
| Bad | 32 (32.7) | 35 (35.7) | 15 (15,3) | 16 (16.3) | 76 (77.6) | 22 (22.4) | |
| Good/average | 33 (19.8) | 47 (28.1) | 40 (24.0) | 47 (28.1) | 72 (43.1) | 95 (56.9) | |
| Satisfaction with ventilation in the workplace | |||||||
| Bad | 32 (32.3) | 36 (36.4) | 20 (20.2) | 11 (11.1) | 71 (71.7) | 28 (28.3) | |
| Good/average | 33 (19.9) | 46 (27.7) | 35 (21.1) | 52 (31.3) | 77 (46.4) | 89 (53.6) | |
| Satisfaction with the hygiene of the workplace | |||||||
| Bad | 17 (34.7) | 14 (28.6) | 10 (20.4) | 8 (16.3) | 36 (73.5) | 13 (26.5) | |
| Good/average | 48 (22.2) | 68 (31.5) | 45 (20.8) | 55 (25.5) | 112 (51.9) | 104 (48.1) | |
| Satisfaction with workplace furniture | |||||||
| Bad | 27 (34.6) | 26 (33.3) | 16 (20.6) | 9 (11.5) | 61 (78.2) | 17 (21.8) | |
| Good/average | 38 (20.3) | 56 (29.9) | 39 (20.9) | 54 (28.9) | 87 (46.5) | 100 (53.5) | |
The adjusted models identified that only a poor assessment of satisfaction with temperature and ventilation had an effect compatible with an increase in high-demand work (Table 4). Lower social support was associated with longer time as a prison officer (more than 15 years), reports of psychological and physical violence, and a poor level of satisfaction with lighting, noise, ventilation, and furniture in the workplace (Table 5).
Table 4. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) of the demand–control model for the study variables. São Paulo, 2,019 (n=265).
| Variables | High demand OR (95%CI) | Passive OR (95%CI) | Active OR (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Years of experience as a prison officer | |||
| ≤15 years | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| >15 years | 0.57 (0.22; 1.49) | 0.62 (0.26; 1.49) | 1.06 (0.40; 2.81) |
| Work sector | |||
| Operational | 1.54 (0.66; 3.59) | 1.69 (0.77; 3.68) | 0.89 (0.40; 1.98) |
| Administrative | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Work shift | |||
| Night shift duty | 0.36 (0.11; 1.20) | 0.48 (0.16; 1.47) | 0.04 (0.01; 0.15) |
| Day shift duty | 0.31 (0.09; 1.00) | 0.39 (0.13; 1.21) | 0.18 (0.06; 0.53) |
| Daily worker | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Physical demands | |||
| High | 2.41 (0.91; 6.38) | 0.56 (0.26; 1.18) | 7.41 (2.01; 27.38) |
| Low/moderate | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Mental demands | |||
| High | 1.27 (0.46; 3.46) | 0.12 (0.02; 0.59) | 1.40 (0.53; 3.74) |
| Low/moderate | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Work; related health condition | |||
| Yes | 1.37 (0.53; 3.52) | 0.80 (0.31; 2.05) | 0.84 (0.30; 2.33) |
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Psychological Violence | |||
| Yes | 1.03 (0.43; 2.47) | 0.52 (0.22; 1.25) | 1.78 (0.76; 4.21) |
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Physical Violence | |||
| Yes | 0.99 (0.31; 3.14) | 0.45 (0.13; 1.56) | 0.48 (0.13; 1.83) |
| No | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with the temperature of the workplace | |||
| Bad | 4.88 (2.02; 11.81) | 3.80 (1.67; 8.66) | 1.86 (0.74; 4.63) |
| Good/average | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with the lighting in the workplace | |||
| Bad | 3.83 (0.97; 15.11) | 2.53 (0.65; 9.89) | 2.21 (0.52; 9.34) |
| Good/average | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with the noise level in the workplace | |||
| Bad | 1.55 (0.67; 3.53) | 1.55 (0.72; 3.33) | 0.83 (0.34; 2.01) |
| Good/average | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with ventilation in the workplace | |||
| Bad | 3.12 (1.31; 7.41) | 3.07 (1.36; 6.89) | 2.23 (0.92; 5.39) |
| Good/average | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with the hygiene of the workplace | |||
| Bad | 1.63 (0.59; 4.45) | 1.13 (0.42; 3.00) | 1.40 (0.49; 4.04) |
| Good/average | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with workplace furniture | |||
| Bad | 2.30 (0.91; 5.86) | 1.54 (0.84; 2.85) | 1.88 (0.72; 4.92) |
| Good/average | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Table 5. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) of the social support dimension by the study variables. São Paulo, 2,019 (n=265).
| Variables | Low social support OR (95%CI) |
|---|---|
| Years of experience as a prison officer | |
| ≤15 | 1.00 |
| >15 | 2.59 (1.33; 5.08) |
| Work sector | |
| Operational | 1.18 (0.65; 2.17) |
| Administrative | 1.00 |
| Work shift | |
| Night shift duty | 1.42 (0.66; 3.08) |
| Day shift duty | 1.21 (0.61; 2.43) |
| Daily worker | 1.00 |
| Physical demands | |
| High | 1.64 (0.85; 3.15) |
| Low/moderate | 1.00 |
| Mental demands | |
| High | 1.11 (0.50; 2.47) |
| Low/moderate | 1.00 |
| Work-related health condition | |
| Yes | 1.09 (0.54; 2.20) |
| No | 1.00 |
| Psychological Violence | |
| Yes | 2.93 (1.55; 5.53) |
| No | 1.00 |
| Physical Violence | |
| Yes | 2.84 (1.02; 7.93) |
| No | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with the temperature of the workplace | |
| Bad | 1.69 (0.94; 3.03) |
| Good/average | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with the lighting in the workplace | |
| Bad | 2.80 (1.11; 7.08) |
| Good/average | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with noise level in the workplace | |
| Bad | 3.94 (2.15; 7.21) |
| Good/average | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with ventilation in the workplace | |
| Bad | 2.15 (1.20; 3.85) |
| Good/average | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with the hygiene of the workplace | |
| Bad | 1.89 (0.90; 3.94) |
| Good/average | 1.00 |
| Satisfaction with workplace furniture | |
| Bad | 2.92 (1.52; 5.60) |
| Good/average | 1.00 |
Discussion
Among the occupational variables investigated, evaluating the level of satisfaction with the temperature and ventilation of the workplace as poor had an effect compatible with the increased chance of highly demanding and passive work. Having greater mental demands had an effect compatible with a lower chance of passive work. Compared to prison officers who worked daily (8 hours a day), those on night and day shifts (12 hours) showed an effect compatible with a lower chance of active work. Reporting greater physical demands at work had an effect compatible with a greater chance of active work. Finally, prison officers with more than 15 years of experience, reports of physical and psychological violence, and those with a poor level of satisfaction regarding some conditions in the workplace showed an effect compatible with a greater chance of having less social support
In relation to work, the cut-off point for high demand (˃14) was close to that found for police officers (˃14) (22), administrative technicians (˃14) (23) and teachers (˃15) (16, 23). The cutoff point for low job control (≤15) was slightly higher than that observed in other law enforcement professionals (≤11 police officers) (22) and lower than that reported in professionals in the educational field. (≤17) (16). That way, We can infer that, although the organization of work is different between these professions, prison officers evaluate the workload in a comparable way to that perceived by other professionals. However, control over the work process itself appears to be more limited among prison officers, possibly due to its nature, organized into ascending levels of command and with risks inherent in professional practice (1).
Working on a shift basis, regardless of the shift, had an effect compatible with a lower chance of active work. These findings can be explained, even if in part, by the theory of the “imprisonment” effect (5), according to which continuous exposure, without the possibility of rest the day after work, as occurs with those who work on-call, can intensify the effects of the workload on mental health. According to this theory, working on a shift basis with a day off the next day, allows a greater disconnect from work activities and the recovery from the effects generated by work demands.
The association found between highly demanding work and a lower level of job satisfaction may be due to the fact that this work condition, in which there is an exacerbation of the negative effects of demands, generates a negative evaluation by the professional regarding their work process and future perspectives in relation to their working life, which may lead to a feeling of inability to perform their functions (24). In this context, in several prison institutions the influence of occupational stress on the reduction of job satisfaction is identified (25). Although these effects are well described in the literature (26), in the present study only the poor satisfaction level with temperature and lighting showed an effect compatible with greater occupational stress. A possible explanation for this finding is the approach adopted in the study, which individually analyzed each aspect of the workplace, making it possible to identify the factors that had the greatest impact on the perception of the prison officers investigated.
The organization of the work process in penitentiaries can, at least in part, justify the association between high physical demands and active work since physical work is mostly conducted by prison officers in operational sectors. This characteristic means that these prison officers, while carrying out more physical activities, are also more exposed to persons deprived of liberty, which can accentuate the perception of the demands of the job (5,24). This exposure may also provide greater control over how they perform their duties, in contrast to correctional officers in administrative roles. Although the work sector has a strong influence on working hours, another important aspect also linked to this variable is the level of exposure to conflict situations, the need to perform a dual function (education and maintenance of order) and greater contact with persons deprived of liberty, which can increase occupational stress (27,28).
The perception of greater mental demands had an effect compatible with a lower chance of classification as passive work. This association seems to be justified, once again, by the “imprisonment” effect (5), aggravated by the characteristics of the work process, in which prison officers in coordination roles are inserted into a well-established routine, which does not provide the possibility of adapting the way they work (29). However, no studies were found that have focused on the organization of work and functions that prison officers perform and the effects of these variables on the demand and control of the work process.
Regarding social support, the effects identified seem to point in the direction that prison officers with less social support feel the physical demands, violence, and conditions of the workplace more intensely. This confirms the mitigating role that social support has, both in the face of work stress (high demands and low control) and other more general occupational variables (16,20,30). These findings justify the apparent greater exhaustion identified in prison officers, compared to other professions, making it necessary, in addition to the analysis of occupational stress, to consider the interference of other individual variables, such as sex and age, as well as variables related to work organization, such as working hours, trauma and performance of functions with greater exposure to conflicts (28,31).
A number of theories try to explain the mechanisms involved in this process, and, in general terms, they postulate that greater social support can directly reduce the effect of instrumental work demands, emotional conflicts and conflicts related to work and personal life balance (30). Furthermore, social support has indirect effects, increasing resilience and other coping mechanisms for stressful situations (32). These effects end up spreading across the network, generating a reduction in occupational stress and burnout, in addition to assisting with individual resources, such as autonomy and work skills, which together can improve autonomy and engagement at work, promoting better results, which feed back into the chain through improved social support (30).
However, reducing occupational stress transcends the dimensions of mental health, influencing other behaviors that are important for a healthy lifestyle, such as sleep (18) and diet (33), which reinforces the importance of actions aimed at controlling or mitigating it. Thus, increasing social support has proven to be an efficient measure for reducing occupational stress and improving quality of life (34). Due to the complexity of the problem, there is a need to adopt systematic changes, given that specific changes to improve relationships and hierarchy have a minor impact on occupational stress, and such changes must be accompanied by a reduction in workload (35).
This study has as its main limitations the cross-sectional design, which does not allow the assessment of causality or directionality between the variables investigated, as well as the fact that the data relate only to prison officers of one sex (male) and from only one Federation Unit, which may limit the generalization of the findings to other populations. Furthermore, the extrapolation of results is considered limited, even for the penitentiaries included in the research, due to the high percentage of losses. However, the study’s strengths include the use of internationally validated scales and, despite the losses, the high number of prison officers who responded to all the research questions, which provided a comprehensive study with statistical analyses adjusted for confounding factors.
Based on the findings, the importance of strategies that can promote greater control over work, reduce demands, and strengthen social support networks among professionals is reinforced as a way of mitigating the adverse health impacts caused by occupational stress.
Footnotes
Peer review administrator: Izabela Fulone (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3211-6951)
Peer reviewer: Virgínia Carvalho (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7929-0466)
Use of generative artificial intelligence: Not applicable.
Data availability.
The database used in the research can be obtained by sending a request and justification to the corresponding author.
References
- 1.Akbari J, Akbari R, Shakerian M, Mahaki B. Job demand-control and job stress at work: A cross-sectional study among prison staff. J Educ Health Promot. 2017;6(1) doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_68_14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Brasil Dados estatísticos do Sistema Penitenciário 13o ciclo: período de julho a dezembro de 2022. 2023. https://www.gov.br/senappen/pt-br/servicos/sisdepen/relatorios/relatorios-analiticos/br/brasil-dez-2022.pdf .
- 3.Scartazzini L, Borges LM. Condição psicossocial do agente penitenciário: uma revisão teórica. Bol - Acad Paul Psicol. 2018;38(94) [Google Scholar]
- 4.Dimenstein M, Lima AIO, Figueiró R de A, Leite JF. Uso abusivo de álcool e outras drogas entre trabalhadores do sistema prisional. Rev Psicol Organ e Trab. 2017;17(1) [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bezerra C de M, de Assis SG, Constantino P. Psychological distress and work stress in correctional officers: a literature review. Cienc e Saude Coletiva. 2016;21(7) doi: 10.1590/1413-81232015217.00502016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Finney C, Stergiopoulos E, Hensel J, Bonato S, Dewa CS. Organizational stressors associated with job stress and burnout in correctional officers: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nixona AE, Mazzolab JJ, Bauera J, Kruegerc JR, Spectora PE. Can work make you sick? A meta-analysis of the relationships between job stressors and physical symptoms. Work Stress. 2011;25(1) [Google Scholar]
- 8.Cullen FT, Link BG, Wolfe NT, Frank J. The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Q. 1985;2(4) [Google Scholar]
- 9.Edwards JR. An Examination Of Competing Versions Of The Person-Environment Fit Approach To Stress. Acad Manag J. 1996;39(2) [Google Scholar]
- 10.Johnson J V, Hall EM. Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study of random sample of the Swedish Working Population. Am J Public Health. 1988;78(10) doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.10.1336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Karasek R. Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24(2) [Google Scholar]
- 12.Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy work: Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. Basic Books; 1992. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Purba A, Demou E. The relationship between organisational stressors and mental wellbeing within police officers: A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1) doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7609-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ganster DC, Rosen CC. Work Stress and Employee Health: A Multidisciplinary Review. 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Amiri S, Behnezhad S. Job strain and mortality ratio: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Public Health [Internet] 2020;181 doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.10.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Birolim MM, Mesas AE, González AD, Santos HG dos, Haddad M do CFL, Andrade SM de. Job strain among teachers: associations with occupational factors according to social support. Cien Saude Colet. 2019;24(4) doi: 10.1590/1413-81232018244.08542017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Silva SLA da, Torres JL, Peixoto SV. Fatores associados à busca por serviços preventivos de saúde entre adultos brasileiros: Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde, 2013. Cien Saude Colet. 2013;25(3) doi: 10.1590/1413-81232020253.15462018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gonçalves SG, Mesas AE, Bravo DS, Birolim MM, Guidoni CM, Andrade SM. Association between sleep quality and occupational factors in Brazilian correctional officers. Behav Sleep Med. 2022;00(00) doi: 10.1080/15402002.2022.2106985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Bravo DS, Gonçalves SG, Girotto E, González AD, Melanda FN, Rodrigues R. Condições de trabalho e transtornos mentais comuns em agentes penitenciários do interior do estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Cien Saude Colet. 2022;27(12) doi: 10.1590/1413-812320222712.10042022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Alves MGDM, Chor D, Faerstein E, Lopes CDS, Werneck GL. Short version of the “job stress scale”: a Portuguese-language adaptation. Rev Saude Publica. 2004;38(2) doi: 10.1590/s0034-89102004000200003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Schreurs P. J., Taris T. W. Construct validity of the demand-control model: A double cross-validation approach. Work & Stress. 1998;12(1) [Google Scholar]
- 22.Garbarino S, Magnavita N. Sleep problems are a strong predictor of stress-related metabolic changes in police officers. A prospective study. PLoS One. 2019;14(10) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.de Moura DCA, Greco RM, Paschoalin HC, Portela LF, Arreguy-Sena C, Chaoubah A. Demandas psicológicas e controle do processo de trabalho de servidores de uma universidade pública. Cienc e Saude Coletiva. 2018;23(2) doi: 10.1590/1413-81232018232.13892015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Lambert EG, Keena LD, Haynes SH, May D, Leone MC. Predictors of Job Stress Among Southern Correctional Staff. Crim Justice Policy Rev. 2020;31(2) [Google Scholar]
- 25.Leip LA, Stinchcomb J, Schiff M. Job Satisfaction and Work-Related Stress: Results From a National Survey of Prison Wardens. Crim Justice Rev. 2017;42(4) [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kavosi Z, Ranaei Kordshouli H, Zare Saadabadi M, Ghorbanian A. The Factors Related to the Employees’ Job Stress: A Meta- Analysis. Heal Manag Inf Sci. 2018;5(4) [Google Scholar]
- 27.Jesus SRD, Felippe AM, Silva YVD. Vulnerabilidade ao estresse entre agentes de segurança penitenciários. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão. 2021;41 [Google Scholar]
- 28.Schultz WJ, Ricciardeli R. Correctional officers and the ongoing health implications of prison work. Health & Justice. 2024;13(1) doi: 10.1186/s40352-024-00308-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Armstrong GS, Griffin ML. Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. J Crim Justice. 2004;32(6) [Google Scholar]
- 30.Jolly PM, Kong DT, Kim KY. Social support at work: An integrative review. J Organ Behav. 2021;42(2) [Google Scholar]
- 31.Page J, Robertson N. Extent and predictors of work-related distress in community correction officers: a systematic review. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. 2022;29(2) doi: 10.1080/13218719.2021.1894259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Gianjacomo TRF, Rodrigues R, Guidoni CM, Girotto E. Analysis of the mediating role of resilience in the relationship between social support and burnout in university students. Educ. rev. 2025;41 [Google Scholar]
- 33.Rodrigues R, Birolim MM, Andrade SM, González AD, Mesas CE, Fernández-Rodríguez R, Mesas AE. Job strain is prospectively associated with a lower frequency of fruit consumption in schoolteachers. Public Health Nutrition. 2021;24(7) doi: 10.1017/S1368980021000860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Foy T, Dwyer RJ, Nafarrete R, Hammoud MSS, Rockett P. Managing job performance, social support and work-life conflict to reduce workplace stress. Int J Product Perform Manag. 2019;68(6) [Google Scholar]
- 35.Clements AJ, Kinman G. Promoting Wellness and Resiliency in Correctional Officers. Routledge; 2022. Job demands, organizational justice, and emotional exhaustion in prison officer. [Google Scholar]