Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Industrial Health logoLink to Industrial Health
. 2015 Dec 26;54(3):237–245. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2015-0191

Psychosocial factors and psychological well-being: a study from a nationally representative sample of Korean workers

Bum-Joon LEE 1, Dirga Kumar LAMICHHANE 2, Dal-Young JUNG 1,2, So-Hyun MOON 1,2, Seong-Jin KIM 1,2, Hwan-Cheol KIM 1,3,*
PMCID: PMC4939870  PMID: 26726830

Abstract

This study was conducted to examine how each psychosocial factor on working conditions is related to a worker’s well-being. Data from the 2011 Korean Working Conditions Survey were analyzed for 33,569 employed workers aged ≥15 years. Well-being was evaluated through the WHO-5 questionnaire and variables about occupational psychosocial factors were classified into eight categories. The prevalence ratios were estimated using Poisson regression model. Overall, 44.3% of men and 57.4% of women were in a low well-being group. In a univariate analysis, most of the psychosocial factors on working conditions are significantly related with a worker’s low well-being, except for insufficient job autonomy in both genders and job insecurity for males only. After adjusting for sociodemographic and structural factors on working conditions, job dissatisfaction, lack of reward, lack of social support, violence and discrimination at work still showed a statistically significant association with a worker’s low well-being for both genders. We found that psychosocial working conditions were associated with the workers’ well-being.

Keywords: Well-being, Psychosocial factor, Employed worker, Korean Working Condition Survey

Introduction

There is a growing contribution of mental health problems to the global burden of disease1). The concept of psychological well-being is related to the positive dimensions of mental health, while the negative dimensions include psychological distress and psychiatric disorders2). Working conditions have been described as an essential determinant of well-being3). In a previous study in South Korea, there was a significant association between workers’ well-being and general working conditions such as satisfaction with working conditions, difference between the actual and desired working time, and employment stability4). In particular, the strongest association of a worker’s well-being with satisfaction with working conditions, one of the psychosocial factors on working conditions, was observed.

The definition of health by the World Health Organization (WHO), a state of physical, mental, and social well-being, gives equal weight to the mental and physical aspects of health. The WHO-5 well-being index, which measures psychological well-being, is a subjective measurement of the positive dimensions of mental health, reflecting aspects other than just the absence of depressive symptoms5). Psychological well-being is predictive of job performance6), and a meta-analysis has revealed a positive relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being7). Many studies have examined job stress as the dimensions of job demand-control-support (JDCS) model identifying job demands, job control, and social supports as essential job characteristics influencing well-being8, 9, 10). In addition to the dimensions from the JDCS, other models include wide dimensions of a psychological environment such as effort-reward imbalance, insecurity at work, mental health, and other influences at work11, 12).

Psychological factors on working conditions are well known risk factors for many adverse health outcomes. Coronary heart diseases13), musculoskeletal diseases14, 15), depression16), even suicidal attempts17) could be affected by psychosocial factors. However, these previous studies focused on specific diseases, not health status in daily life, or well-being. There is little research available about the wide range of psychosocial working conditions and the WHO well-being index (WHO-5) in a nationally representative sample of the working population18). The majority of studies have used a limited number of psychosocial work factors and employed different measures of well-being19, 20). Moreover, comparing with other etiologies, most of the previous studies dealt with psychosocial factors as one category or score of a test. Many aspects of psychosocial factors were merged together, so it is hard to interpret the results. The present study examines how each psychosocial factor on working conditions is related to workers’ well-being, using a nationally representative sample of Korean workers.

Subjects and Methods

Study participants

This study used a sample from the third wave of the 2011 Korean Working Conditions Survey (KWCS) conducted by the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency. The methodology and survey questionnaire used for the third KWCS is similar to those used in the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS), and the third survey built on investigations begun in the first and second survey (2006, 2011). The KWCS study has been described in detail previously21, 22). In both surveys, a nationally representative sample of the economically active population aged 15 to 65 years, persons who were either employees or self-employed at the time of the interview, was collected. The basic sample design for both surveys employed multi-stage random sampling based on the population and housing census23). In the EWCS 2010, psychosocial work factors were measured following a comprehensive instrument (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire, COPSOQ): out of twenty-five psychosocial work factors, 16 were constructed according to the second edition of the COPSOQ24). The survey was carried out at a number of different sampling areas, determined using probability proportional to population size and to population density.

In this study, we defined the subjects as only ‘employed workers’, so we excluded ‘a self-employed worker’ or ‘an unpaid worker for familial business. With these exclusion criteria, the data from 33,569 employed workers were used in this study. The quality of the KWCS was assured by its high external and content validity and reliability21). The KWCS used a seven-code recording method developed by the Standard Definitions (2011) of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)25), and a response rate of 35.4% was calculated. Trained interviewers were used to interview participants after getting written informed consent. The Institutional Review Board of Inha University Hospital approved the study protocol.

World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5)

Well-being was evaluated through the WHO-5 questionnaire (the 1998 version)26). Although the index was originally designed to measure well-being in diabetic patients27), its effectiveness has been supported in diagnostic depression screening28) and evaluation of emotional well-being in patients with chronic diseases including cardiovascular diseases27) and Parkinson’s disease29), and in young children30), and elderly adults31).

The index consists of five positively worded items, each of which reflects the respondent’s feelings during the preceding two-week period. The five items are as follows: I have felt cheerful and in good spirits; I have felt calm and relaxed; I have felt active and vigorous; I woke up feeling fresh and rested; My daily life has been filled with things that interest me. Subjects respond to each item rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale of 0–5, indicating 0 for the lack of positive feelings and 5 for consistent positive feelings during the past two weeks. A raw score lower than 13 implies a low well-being32), and a raw point score considerably below 13 may necessitate screening for depression with the Major Depression Inventory (under ICD-10)15). This study has evaluated the states of well-being of the subjects by classifying subjects with total scores below 13 into the “low well-being” group, and the scores ≥13 are indicative of the “high well-being” group32).

Workplace psychological factors

Variables about occupational psychosocial factors were classified into eight categories: (i) job dissatisfaction, (ii) job insecurity, (iii) lack of social support, (iv) excessive work intensity, (v) insufficient job autonomy, (vi) lack of rewards, (vii) discrimination, all aspects, and (viii) violence. Job dissatisfaction was evaluated using the following question: “I am satisfied with my occupational conditions.” Job insecurity was evaluated using the following question: “I might lose my job within next 6 month.” Lack of social support was evaluated using the following 2 questions: (1) “My colleagues help and support me.” and (2) “My supervisor helps and supports me.” Four items (“working pace” “presence of a deadline” “I know my appointed role in work” and “I am emotionally implicated in my job.”) were used to evaluate excessive job intensity. Five items (“I can select or change my working orders.” “I can select or change my working methods.” “I can select or change my working pace.” “When a person who is working with me will be selected, my opinion is reflected.” and “I can take a break when I want to do.”) were used to evaluate insufficient job autonomy. Three items (“I am receiving appropriate rewards from my job.” “My job has a good prospect for career advancement.” and “I feel comfort within my working organization”) were used to evaluate lack of rewards. Participants who were discriminated against any aspect (age, educational level, region of birth, gender, and employment status) within last 12 months were classified to a group “with discrimination”. Participants who experienced any violence (violent language, sexual harassment, threatening or humiliating behavior, physical violence, and bullying) within the last 12 months were classified to a group “with violence”. Each factor was converted to a dichotomous variable (high, low).

Potential confounding variables

We used several other potential confounding variables that were likely to be associated with well-being globally and in Korea. Previously published studies that reported an association between workplace psychological factors and well-being or variables that could be potential confounders to well-being were also included in the analysis4, 18). The variables included those related to socio-economic and structural factors on work conditions such as age, educational level, monthly income, number of employees, employment contract types, working hours per week, occupation, shift work, and lifestyle factors. The lifestyle factors included daily alcohol consumption (number of glass of alcohol consumed a day) and smoking status.

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed with the SPSS (version 14.0) after encoding was completed. All analysis was conducted after stratifying by gender. A descriptive analysis was carried out on sociodemographic factors and structural and psychosocial factors on working conditions. Frequencies were compared on χ2 tests. As the prevalence of outcomes in men and women was high, prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Poisson regression model33). Two adjusted models were used for adjusting for the effect of confounding factors. Model 1 was adjusted for sociodemographic factors (age, education, monthly income, smoking status, and alcohol consumption); model 2 was adjusted for sociodemographic and structural factors (occupation, weekly working time, employment type, shift work, and number of employees). A Pearson correlation analysis was used to test for multicollinearity among individual factors. The significance threshold was 0.05.

Results

Tables 1 and 2 compare sociodemographic and structural factors between high well-being and low well-being groups of male and female respondents. The descriptive analysis of the WHO Five Well-being Index in the 19,589 male participants revealed 8,681 (44.3%) were in the low well-being group, while 10,908 (55.7%) were in the high well-being group. Among the 13,980 female workers, 5,957 (42.6%) were in the low well-being and 8,023 (57.4%) were in the high well-being group.

Table 1. Sociodemographic and structural factors and well-being of male respondents.

Total Well-being p-value*
High Low
N N % N %
Total 19,589 10,908 55.7 8,681 44.3
Age (years) ≤29 2,646 1,602 60.5 1,044 39.5 <0.001
30–39 6,173 3,607 58.4 2,566 41.6
40–49 5,626 3,051 54.2 2,575 45.8
50–59 3,568 1,839 51.5 1,729 48.5
≥60 1,576 809 51.3 767 48.7
Education Middle school 1,858 756 40.7 1,102 59.3 <0.001
High school 7,568 3,880 51.3 3,688 48.7
Junior college 3,124 1,777 56.9 1,347 43.1
College or higher 7,039 4,495 63.9 2,544 36.1
Monthly income (KRW) <1 million 1,281 677 52.8 604 47.2 <0.001
1–1.99 million 5,794 2,939 50.7 2,855 49.3
2–2.99 million 6,791 3,826 56.3 2,965 43.7
≥3 million 5,723 3,466 60.6 2,257 39.4
Smoking Non-smoker 5,607 3,372 60.1 2,235 39.9 <0.001
Current smoker 3,221 1,754 54.5 1,467 45.5
Ex-smoker 10,761 5,782 53.7 4,979 46.3
Alcohol consumption Non-drinker 2,851 1,588 55.7 1,263 44.3 <0.001
Moderate drinker 12,416 7,127 57.4 5,289 42.6
Excessive drinker 4,322 2,193 50.7 2,129 49.3
Occupation White collar 7,876 4,974 63.2 2,902 36.8 <0.001
Blue collar 8,913 4,220 47.3 4,693 52.7
Pink collar 2,800 1,714 61.2 1,086 38.8
Working time (hours) <40 7,159 4,319 60.3 2,840 39.7 <0.001
41–52 6,607 3,702 56.0 2,905 44.0
53–60 3,822 1,911 50.0 1,911 50.0
≥61 2,001 976 48.8 1,025 51.2
Employment contract Standard 15,420 8,906 57.8 6,514 42.2 <0.001
Contingent 4,169 2,002 48.0 2,167 52.0
Shift work Absent 17,237 9,767 56.7 7,470 43.3 <0.001
Present 2,352 1,141 48.5 1,211 51.5
Number of employees ≤4 3,695 2,068 56.0 1,627 44.0 0.100
5–49 10,071 5,545 55.1 4,526 44.9
50–299 3,808 2,184 57.4 1,624 42.6
≥300 2,015 1,111 55.1 904 44.9
Job dissatisfaction Low 14,244 8,895 62.4 5,349 37.6 <0.001
High 5,345 2,013 37.7 3,332 62.3
Job insecurity Low 18,572 10,365 55.8 8,207 44.2 0.131
High 1,017 543 53.4 474 46.6
Lack of social support Low 15,082 8,973 59.5 6,109 40.5 <0.001
High 4,507 1,935 42.9 2,572 57.1
Work intensity Low 11,578 6,629 57.3 4,949 42.7 <0.001
High 8,011 4,279 53.4 3,732 46.6
Insufficient job autonomy Low 9,995 5,585 55.9 4,410 44.1 0.578
High 9,594 5,323 55.5 4,271 44.5
Lack of reward Low 14,847 9,003 60.6 5,844 39.4 <0.001
High 4,742 1,905 40.2 2,837 59.8
Discrimination No 17,640 9,923 56.3 7,717 43.7 <0.001
Yes 1,949 985 50.5 964 49.5
Violence at work No 18,526 10,446 56.4 8,080 43.6 <0.001
Yes 1,063 462 43.5 601 56.5
Open in a new tab

*Chi-square test for comparison between high and low well-being.

Table 2. Sociodemographic and structural factors and well-being of female respondents.

Total Well-being p-value*
High Low
N N % N %
Total 13,980 8,023 57.4 5,957 42.6
Age (years) ≤29 2,871 1,766 61.5 1,105 38.5 <0.001
30–39 3,995 2,445 61.2 1,550 38.8
40–49 4,191 2,373 56.6 1,818 43.4
50–59 1,992 1,019 51.2 973 48.8
≥60 931 420 45.1 511 54.9
Education Middle school 1,849 810 43.8 1,039 56.2 <0.001
High school 5,714 3,196 55.9 2,518 44.1
Junior college 2,744 1,695 61.8 1,049 38.2
College or higher 3,673 2,322 63.2 1,351 36.8
Monthly income (KRW) <1 million 3,043 1,502 49.4 1,541 50.6 <0.001
1–1.99 million 7,525 4,430 58.9 3,095 41.1
2–2.99 million 2,300 1,399 60.8 901 39.2
≥3 million 1,112 692 62.2 420 37.8
Smoking Non-smoker 12,793 7,321 57.2 5,472 42.8 0.156
Current smoker 393 244 62.1 149 37.9
Ex-smoker 794 458 57.7 336 42.3
Alcohol consumption Non-drinker 5,008 2,700 53.9 2,308 46.1 <0.001
Moderate drinker 7,647 4,665 61.0 2,982 39.0
Excessive drinker 1,325 658 49.7 667 50.3
Occupation White collar 5,995 3,779 63.0 2,216 37.0 <0.001
Blue collar 3,161 1,494 47.3 1,667 52.7
Pink collar 4,824 2,750 57.0 2,074 43.0
Working time ≤40 6,317 3,588 56.8 2,729 43.2 0.149
41–52 4,392 2,540 57.8 1,852 42.2
53–60 2,310 1,363 59.0 947 41.0
≥61 961 532 55.4 429 44.6
Employment contract Standard 9,969 5,962 59.8 4,007 40.2 <0.001
Contingent 4,011 2,061 51.4 1,950 48.6
Shift work Absent 13,073 7,547 57.7 5,526 42.3 0.002
Present 907 476 52.5 431 47.5
Number of employees ≤4 4,645 2,709 58.3 1,936 41.7 <0.001
5–49 6,932 3,865 55.8 3,067 44.2
50–299 1,887 1,165 61.7 722 38.3
≥300 516 284 55.0 232 45.0
Job dissatisfaction Low 10,445 6,631 63.5 3,814 36.5 <0.001
High 3,535 1,392 39.4 2,143 60.6
Job insecurity Low 13,134 7,580 57.7 5,554 42.3 0.002
High 846 443 52.4 403 47.6
Lack of social support Low 10,492 6,422 61.2 4,070 38.8 <0.001
High 3,488 1,601 45.9 1,887 54.1
Work intensity Low 8,691 5,085 58.5 3,606 41.5 0.001
High 5,289 2,938 55.5 2,351 44.5
Insufficient job autonomy Low 6,673 3,876 58.1 2,797 41.9 0.112
High 7,307 4,147 56.8 3,160 43.2
Lack of reward Low 10,425 6,510 62.4 3,915 37.6 <0.001
High 3,555 1,513 42.6 2,042 57.4
Discrimination No 12,448 7,207 57.9 5,241 42.1 0.001
Yes 1,532 816 53.3 716 46.7
Violence at work No 13,194 7,674 58.2 5,520 41.8 <0.001
Yes 786 349 44.4 437 55.6
Open in a new tab

*Chi-square test for comparison between high and low well-being.

Sociodemographic factors and well-being

In both genders, young workers showed a larger portion within the high well-being group than the portion for older workers. The workers with higher levels of education or monthly income showed a better well-being status than those at other levels of education. In male workers, well-being of the non-smoker group was the highest, while well-being of the currently smoking group was the lowest. However, no significant difference in well-being was observed in female workers according to smoking status. In both genders, the well-being of the moderate drinker group was the highest, while the well-being of the excessive drinker group was the lowest.

Structural factors on working conditions and well-being

A univariate analysis revealed that among 3 job types, blue-collar workers had the lowest well-being status. The portion of high well-being workers decreased along increasing weekly working hours in males, while the trend for female workers did not decrease. Temporary workers and shift workers showed a lower well-being status than the other groups. The number of employees has no statistical significance for male workers.

Psychosocial factors on working conditions and well-being

Table 3 presents the gender-specific PRs (with 95% CI) of workplace psychosocial factors for low well-being. In a univariate analysis, most of the psychosocial factors on working conditions are significantly related with workers’ low well-being, except for insufficient job autonomy in both genders and job insecurity in males only. After adjusting for sociodemographic and structural factors on working conditions, job dissatisfaction (PR=1.501, 95% CI: 1.433–1.573 in males; PR=1.578, 95% CI: 1.493–1.668 in females), lack of reward (PR=1.382, 95% CI: 1.318–1.450 in males; PR=1.431, 95% CI: 1.353–1.514 in females), lack of social support (PR=1.323, 95% CI: 1.261–1.388 in males; PR=1.325, 95% CI: 1.254–1.401 in females), violence (PR=1.163, 95% CI: 1.069–1.266 in males; PR=1.350, 95% CI: 1.222–1.491 in females) and discrimination at work place (PR=1.072, 95% CI: 1.002–1.147 in males; PR=1.107, 95% CI: 1.023–1.198 in females) still showed statistically significant associations with workers’ low well-being. Excessive work intensity (PR=1.055, 95% CI: 1.011–1.102 in males; PR=1.063, 95% CI: 1.009–1.120 in females) was significantly associated with workers’ low well-being when adjusted for age, education, income, smoking status and alcohol consumption. However, there were no significant PRs for job insecurity and job autonomy in both genders.

Table 3. Associations between workplace psychosocial factors and well-being in the representative sample of Korean workers.

Unadjusted Model 1a Model 2b
PR 95% CI PR 95% CI PR 95% CI
Male
Job dissatisfaction Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.660 1.590–1.733 1.544 1.474–1.616 1.501 1.433–1.573
Job insecurity Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.055 0.961–1.157 0.991 0.901–1.091 0.981 0.891–1.080
Lack of social support Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.409 1.345–1.475 1.334 1.271–1.399 1.323 1.261–1.388
Work intensity Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.090 1.045–1.137 1.055 1.011–1.102 1.022 0.978–1.067
Insufficient job autonomy Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.009 0.967–1.052 0.986 0.944–1.029 0.969 0.928–1.012
Lack of reward Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.520 1.453–1.590 1.411 1.345–1.479 1.382 1.318–1.450
Discrimination No 1.000 1.000 1.000
Yes 1.131 1.057–1.209 1.104 1.033–1.181 1.072 1.002–1.147
Violence at work No 1.000 1.000 1.000
Yes 1.296 1.193–1.408 1.217 1.119–1.322 1.163 1.069–1.266
Female
Job dissatisfaction Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.660 1.575–1.750 1.589 1.505–1.679 1.578 1.493–1.668
Job insecurity Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.126 1.018–1.246 1.013 0.913–1.124 0.992 0.894–1.102
Lack of social support Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.395 1.321–1.473 1.336 1.264–1.412 1.325 1.254–1.401
Work intensity Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.071 1.017–1.128 1.063 1.009–1.120 1.043 0.988–1.100
Insufficient job autonomy Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.032 0.981–1.086 1.029 0.978–1.083 1.028 0.976–1.082
Lack of reward Low 1.000 1.000 1.000
High 1.530 1.450–1.614 1.444 1.365–1.527 1.431 1.353–1.514
Discrimination No 1.000 1.000 1.000
Yes 1.110 1.027–1.200 1.125 1.040–1.217 1.107 1.023–1.198
Violence at work No 1.000 1.000 1.000
Yes 1.329 1.206–1.465 1.370 1.241–1.511 1.350 1.222–1.491
Open in a new tab

a Adjusted for age, education, monthly income, smoking status, and alcohol consumption

b Additional adjustment for job type, weekly working time, employment type, work schedule, and company size.

Discussion

This study evaluated the association between psychosocial factors on working conditions and workers’ well-being in a nationwide representative sample of Korea. After we adjusted for sociodemographic and structural factors on working conditions, job dissatisfaction showed the strongest association with workers’ low well-being. Lack of reward and lack of social support also induce an important effect on workers’ well-being. ‘Reward’ includes many values such as wage, salary, esteem, and chance of promotion, and is one of the most important psychosocial working conditional factors34). The ‘Effort-Reward Imbalance Model’ used in many studies revealed many association with workers’ mental health outcome35) such as insomnia36), alcohol dependence37), and depression16). ‘Social support’ is also a very important factor for evaluating psychosocial burden at the workplace and is a crucial component of the ‘Demand-Control-Support Model’8). In a previous study, social support showed significant association with coronary heart disease of workers38). We found that violence and discrimination at the work place, as well, were statistically significant factors for workers’ well-being. As reported in previous studies, interpersonal violence26, 39) or discrimination by sex40) or race41) could affect the mental and physical health of workers.

In this study, the prevalence of poor psychological well-being in Korean workers was higher than that of European workers based on the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS 2010); the rates were 44.3% of men and 42.6% of women in our study and 23.6% and 28.3%, respectively, in European countries18). This difference may be due to different definitions and classifications of outcome, different methodologies for collecting and processing information, culture differences in the experience of well-being, and different time frames analyzed, as well as of actual occurrence. However, in this study, the methodology and questionnaire used by the KWCS were very similar to those used by the EWCS; thus, the results of these two surveys are comparable. The difference in the prevalence of lower well-being between Korea and the European countries is not necessarily related to a lack of clarity in the definition, variation in the time frames or difference in methodologies. It may reflect cultural differences in various societies, meaning that the perceptions of psychological well-being can be different in different societies42). In countries with more gender-neutral ideology, women may be treated more equally with men, may result in lower well-being. It is also reported that men in higher GDP countries have better psychological well-being related to work responsibility42). However, most studies on well-being and gender came from the United States and other Western nations; factors found to be important in these countries are not likely to have the same impact in non-Western nations. Therefore, further country-specific research in this context is needed.

The sociodemographic factors were drawn from a nationwide survey on working conditions and included age, educational level, monthly income, smoking, and drinking status. Our previous study concluded that workers’ well-being resulted in no differences between the genders. However, there are still differences between genders on the way a worker adapts for or reacts to their psychosocial environment43). Therefore, we stratified the subjects by their gender. Age, educational level, monthly income, smoking and drinking status had the same trend with our previous study4).

This study, however, has several limitations. First, this is a cross-sectional study, and therefore, we cannot make conclusions regarding causality. Second, we did not take into account the “healthy worker effect” during our analysis, in which the influence of psychosocial working conditional factors could be underestimated. Third, we did not examine variations in individual personality traits. Every person employs different mechanisms of psychosocial adaptation. Moreover, an existing study explored the hypothesis that individuals’ positive personalities are closely related to their well-being44). However, we were not able to investigate personality traits because the working conditions survey did not contain the necessary items.

Despite the limitations, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in Asia to use representative national data and to reveal that psychosocial factors on working conditions are associated with workers’ well-being. We believe the use of the results of this study may contribute to better quality of a worker’s daily life.

Conclusions

We found that psychosocial working conditions were associated with the workers’ well-being. Evidence from the study indicates that job dissatisfaction, lack of reward, lack of social support, violence and discrimination at work place, and excessive work intensity are key factors associated with workers’ well-being. Workers’ well-being is an important issue that merits continued attention and management. The above factors can deteriorate the quality of workers’ lives and may decrease overall labor productivity. Our results could be useful for guiding intervention programs related to the quality of workers’ lives, in particular with the management of well-being in workers, addressing unfavorable psychosocial working conditions. We anticipate doing further research to determine causal relationships between psychosocial working conditions and workers’ well-being.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by INHA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL Research Grant.

Ethical Standards

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.Whiteford HA, Ferrari AJ, Degenhardt L, Feigin V, Vos T (2015) The global burden of mental, neurological and substance use disorders: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. PLoS One 10, e0116820 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116820). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Headey B, Kelley J, Wearing A (1993) Dimensions of mental health: life satisfaction, positive affect, anxiety and depression. Soc Indic Res 29, 63–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kopp MS, Stauder A, Purebl G, Janszky I, Skrabski A (2008) Work stress and mental health in a changing society. Eur J Public Health 18, 238–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lee BJ, Park SG, Min KB, Min JY, Hwang SH, Leem JH, Kim HC, Jeon SH, Heo YS, Moon SH (2014) The relationship between working condition factors and well-being. Ann Occup Environ Med 26, 34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bech P, Olsen LR, Kjoller M, Rasmussen NK (2003) Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: a comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the WHO-Five Well-Being Scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 12, 85–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wright TA, Cropanzano R (2000) Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. J Occup Health Psychol 5, 84–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bowling NA, Eschleman KJ, Wang Q (2010) A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. J Occup Organ Psychol 83, 915–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Johnson JV, Hall EM (1988) Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population. Am J Public Health 78, 1336–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Johnson JV, Hall EM, Theorell T (1989) Combined effects of job strain and social isolation on cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in a random sample of the Swedish male working population. Scand J Work Environ Health 15, 271–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Karasek RA., Jr (1979) Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Adm Sci Q 24, 285–308. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Høgh A, Borg V (2005) The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire—a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health 31, 438–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Marmot M, Niedhammer I, Peter R (2004) The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med 58, 1483–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kivimäki M, Kawachi I (2015) Work Stress as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease. Curr Cardiol Rep 17, 630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kraatz S, Lang J, Kraus T, Münster E, Ochsmann E (2013) The incremental effect of psychosocial workplace factors on the development of neck and shoulder disorders: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 86, 375–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hoogendoorn WE, van Poppel MN, Bongers PM, Koes BW, Bouter LM (2000) Systematic review of psychosocial factors at work and private life as risk factors for back pain. Spine 25, 2114–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Theorell T, Hammarström A, Aronsson G, Träskman Bendz L, Grape T, Hogstedt C, Marteinsdottir I, Skoog I, Hall C (2015) A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. BMC Public Health 15, 738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Woo JM, Postolache TT (2008) The impact of work environment on mood disorders and suicide: Evidence and implications. Int J Disabil Hum Dev 7, 185–200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Schütte S, Chastang JF, Malard L, Parent-Thirion A, Vermeylen G, Niedhammer I (2014) Psychosocial working conditions and psychological well-being among employees in 34 European countries. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 87, 897–907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nieuwenhuijsen K, Bruinvels D, Frings-Dresen M (2010) Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occup Med (Lond) 60, 277–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tang K. (2014) A reciprocal interplay between psychosocial job stressors and worker well-being? A systematic review of the “reversed” effect. Scand J Work Environ Health 40, 441–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kim YS, Rhee KY, Oh MJ, Park J (2013) The validity and reliability of the second Korean working conditions survey. Saf Health Work 4, 111–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions: Working conditions in Korea: Survey highlights. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2012/19/en/1/EF1219EN.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2015.
  • 23.Park J, Lee N (2009) First Korean Working Conditions Survey: a comparison between South Korea and EU countries. Ind Health 47, 50–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Slany C, Schütte S, Chastang JF, Parent-Thirion A, Vermeylen G, Niedhammer I (2014) Psychosocial work factors and long sickness absence in Europe. Int J Occup Environ Health 20, 16–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.The American Association for Public Opinion Research Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 7th edition-2011. https://www.esomar.org/uploads/public/knowledge-and-standards/codes-and-guidelines/ESOMAR_Standard-Definitions-Final-Dispositions-of-Case-Codes-and-Outcome-Rates-for-Surveys.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2015.
  • 26.Arnetz JE, Arnetz BB, Petterson IL (1996) Violence in the nursing profession: occupational and lifestyle risk factors in Swedish nurses. Work Stress 10, 119–27. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Birket-Smith M, Rasmussen A (2008) Screening for mental disorders in cardiology outpatients. Nord J Psychiatry 62, 147–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Awata S, Bech P, Koizumi Y, Seki T, Kuriyama S, Hozawa A, Ohmori K, Nakaya N, Matsuoka H, Tsuji I (2007) Validity and utility of the Japanese version of the WHO-Five Well-Being Index in the context of detecting suicidal ideation in elderly community residents. Int Psychogeriatr 19, 77–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schneider CB, Pilhatsch M, Rifati M, Jost WH, Wodarz F, Ebersbach G, Djundja D, Fuchs G, Gies A, Odin P, Reifschneider G, Wolz M, Bottesi A, Bauer M, Reichmann H, Storch A (2010) Utility of the WHO-Five Well-being Index as a screening tool for depression in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 25, 777–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Allgaier AK, Pietsch K, Frühe B, Prast E, Sigl-Glöckner J, Schulte-Körne G (2012) Depression in pediatric care: is the WHO-Five Well-Being Index a valid screening instrument for children and adolescents? Gen Hosp Psychiatry 34, 234–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Allgaier AK, Kramer D, Saravo B, Mergl R, Fejtkova S, Hegerl U (2013) Beside the Geriatric Depression Scale: the WHO-Five Well-being Index as a valid screening tool for depression in nursing homes. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 28, 1197–204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Moon YS, Kim HJ, Kim DH (2014) The relationship of the Korean version of the WHO Five Well-Being Index with depressive symptoms and quality of life in the community-dwelling elderly. Asian J Psychiatr 9, 26–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.McNutt LA, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP (2003) Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 157, 940–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Siegrist J. (1996) Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol 1, 27–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Niedhammer I, Chastang JF, David S, Barouhiel L, Barrandon G (2006) Psychosocial work environment and mental health: Job-strain and effort-reward imbalance models in a context of major organizational changes. Int J Occup Environ Health 12, 111–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ota A, Masue T, Yasuda N, Tsutsumi A, Mino Y, Ohara H (2005) Association between psychosocial job characteristics and insomnia: an investigation using two relevant job stress models--the demand-control-support (DCS) model and the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model. Sleep Med 6, 353–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Head J, Stansfeld SA, Siegrist J (2004) The psychosocial work environment and alcohol dependence: a prospective study. Occup Environ Med 61, 219–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kuper H, Marmot M, Hemingway H (2002) Systematic review of prospective cohort studies of psychosocial factors in the etiology and prognosis of coronary heart disease. Semin Vasc Med 2, 267–314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bourbonnais R, Jauvin N, Dussault J, Vézina M (2007) Psychosocial work environment, interpersonal violence at work and mental health among correctional officers. Int J Law Psychiatry 30, 355–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pavalko EK, Mossakowski KN, Hamilton VJ (2003) Does perceived discrimination affect health? Longitudinal relationships between work discrimination and women’s physical and emotional health. J Health Soc Behav 44, 18–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Agudelo-Suárez A, Gil-González D, Ronda-Pérez E, Porthé V, Paramio-Pérez G, García AM, Garí A (2009) Discrimination, work and health in immigrant populations in Spain. Soc Sci Med 68, 1866–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hori M, Kamo Y (2014) A multi-level analysis of psychological well-being related to work and family in 33 countries. Family and Health: Evolving Needs, Responsibilities, and Experiences 8B, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Denton M, Prus S, Walters V (2004) Gender differences in health: a Canadian study of the psychosocial, structural and behavioural determinants of health. Soc Sci Med 58, 2585–600. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Peterson C. (2006) A primer in positive psychology. USA: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Industrial Health are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan

RESOURCES