Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 5;16(4):e0249640. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249640

Workplace stress and associated factors among vehicle repair workers in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia

Hailemichael Mulugeta 1,*, Aiggan Tamene 2, Tesfaye Ashenafi 3, Steven M Thygerson 4, Nathaniel D Baxter 4
Editor: Frank T Spradley5
PMCID: PMC8021151  PMID: 33819287

Abstract

Introduction

Workplace stress is a public health problem worldwide. Studies focusing on work-related stress among vehicle repair workers are scarce in African countries. The current study aimed to determine the prevalence of self-reported workplace stress and associated factors among vehicle repair workers in Hawassa City, South Ethiopia.

Methods and findings

A cross-sectional study design was employed among 347 vehicle repair workers from January 25 to February 22, 2019. Questionnaires were administered using interviews. Additional tools were used for weight and height measurements. The main findings were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariable, and multivariable logistic regression. The strength of association of variables was presented by odds ratio along with its 95% CI. The statistical assessments were considered significant at p<0.05. A total of 344 workers participated in the study. The prevalence of workplace stress among participants was 41.6% with 95% CI: (36.3–47.1). Factors associated with workplace stress were more than 10 years of work experience [AOR: 2.40; 95% CI (1.29–4.50)], work-related musculoskeletal disorder [AOR: 3.39; 95% CI (1.99–5.78)], squatting and lying work posture [AOR: 4.63; 95% CI (1.61–13.3)] and servicing large vehicles [AOR: 1.96; 95% CI (1.14–3.38)].

Conclusion and recommendations

This study showed that the overall prevalence of work-related stress was substantially high. The independently associated factors were workers’ service years, symptoms of body pain, and the work environment. Preventive measures need to be implemented in vehicle repair workshops by focusing on work environment improvements.

Introduction

Work-related stress is defined as the harmful emotional and physical responses that employees experience when their abilities and skills do not meet current job requirements and that challenge their ability to cope [1, 2].

Different reports indicate that workplace stress affects workers’ physical health, mental health, and behavior. Stress is a predicting factor for occupational injury [35], work-related musculoskeletal disorder [6, 7], change of brain structure (reduction of gray matter) [8], depression [9], circulating inflammatory leukocytes [10], and high blood pressure [11].

Existing studies on the prevalence of workplace stress in Ethiopia have shown rates of 37.8% and 48.6% among healthcare professionals [12, 13], 58.2% among high school teachers [14], 60.4% among university teachers [15], and 40.4% among shoe manufacturing workers [16].

The availability of studies among vehicle repair workers to identify factors associated with workplace stress remains a significant challenge. However, findings from other groups showed that gender [17], age [15, 17], marital status [13, 18], education [12, 14, 17, 18], working experience [12, 14, 16, 19], job demands [14, 15], job security [18], poor interpersonal relationships [14, 16], smoking cigarettes [15], work hours [16, 17], job position [17], income [16, 17], alcohol use [19], and poor physical environment [16] were factors significantly associated with workplace stress.

There is a scarcity of studies on workplace stress among vehicle repair workers. A study from India revealed a workplace stress prevalence of 47% [20]. Studies among vehicle repair workshops in different countries revealed that workers suffered from occupational injuries [3], excess exposure to chemicals [2023], work-related musculoskeletal disorder [24], occupational contact dermatitis [25, 26], and neurotoxicity [23]. Vehicle repair workers are exposed to workplace stressors including work in noisy and hot environments, poor psycho-social conditions, and awkward postures [11, 20, 27]. Such conditions may exert a negative influence on workers’ health and safety.

Most worker related studies in Ethiopia do not address vehicle repair workers’ stress status [28]. The majority of the vehicle repair workers did not implement effective preventive or control measures for workplace exposure [11]. Workplace stress not only affects the worker, but it has adverse effects on family income and company performance as well. Hence, evidence for planning intervention activities on stress has been limited in the country [28]. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the prevalence of workplace stress and the associated factors among workers in vehicle repair workshops.

Materials and methods

The current study was completed at the same time as our 2020 published study on work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Both this and our other published work studied the same study population [6]. The data collection period, study area and data collection procedures are also similar in both studies. Therefore, the published study’s socio-demographic characteristics and a few other variables were similar with the current study. However, the objectives, outcomes variables and conclusions were different for each study.

Study design, setting and period

This cross-sectional study was conducted among workers of vehicle repair workshops from January 25 to February 22, 2019, in Hawassa city. The city is the capital of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ region, Ethiopia. The city is located 367 km from Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. A total of 38 private and 3 governmental vehicle repair workshops were registered in Hawassa City in 2019 [6, 29]. Regarding service delivery, privately owned workshops provide services to vehicles owned by the government and private vehicles, but government-owned shops are established only as repair workshops for government vehicles. As of 2019, there was a total of 368 workers in 41 vehicle repair workshops in the city [6].

The study population

The study included any worker with a minimum of 12 months of service in the industry. Exclusion criteria were: workers with any diagnosis of neurologic symptoms, congenital insensitivities (e.g. scoliosis) before starting vehicle repair work, and workers with gout, trauma, or joint disease 12 months before the data collection. A total of 347 vehicle repair workers were eligible participants. Due to inadequate work duration and disease diagnosis, 21 workers were excluded from the study.

Study variables

Workers’ stress status was the dependent variable. The independent variables include sociodemographic factors (sex, age, marital status, education, employment status, job position, service years, and monthly income); personal characteristics (physical activity, type of activity engage in after leaving work, cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking, khat chewing, job satisfaction, body mass index (BMI), work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD)); and work environment characteristics (professional training, health and safety training, working hours per week, type of vehicle workshop, type of vehicle serviced, job category/responsibility, staff adequacy for work required, lifting heavy loads, work area, and work posture).

Data collection tool and procedure

The questionnaire was administered via interviews and anthropometric measurements were used to collect study variables. The tools (S1) used to collect study variables were developed from several published papers [12, 16, 18, 22, 3034].

Stress was assessed with the questionnaire of the Marlin Company and the American Institute of Stress Scale [30]. The tool was validated by the American Institute of Stress and used in a wide range of occupations including shoe manufacturing employees [16], oncologists [35], medical educators [36], social workers [37], and female domestic workers [38]. The stress score was calculated by analysis of the five-point Likert scale ranging from never to very often. Job satisfaction was weighed with a generic job satisfaction scale [31]. The tool was validated by previous research and has shown to be valid and useful in a wide range of occupational groups [4, 33, 34, 3941]. The questionnaire consisted of ten items. Each item had a five-point Likert response from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ-E) was used to measure WMSD symptoms in nine body regions [42]. NMQ-E is repeatable, sensitive and useful as a screening and surveillance tool and has been used in several epidemiological studies [32, 4345]. BMI was calculated in kilograms per square meter (kg/m2) [46, 47].

The study team consisted of four health and safety professional data collectors and one experienced field supervisor. The data collection tools were pretested. The interview was conducted in an isolated place to avoid disturbance and to maintain participant privacy. The study participants’ weights were measured with a standardized electronic scale with the subjects standing and wearing light clothes. The subjects’ heights were measured with a portable stadiometer. The data collection activities were conducted with close follow-up by the principal investigator and supervisor.

Data quality control

Data quality was ensured before the actual data collection. Health-related questions were translated from English to Amharic (local language) by a health professional familiar with the terminology. Vehicle repair and maintenance facilities questions were translated by an auto mechanical engineer. The translations approach was focused on cross-cultural and conceptual translations rather than the literal or linguistic equivalence of the terminologies. Then, reverse translation from the local language to English was done by an English language expert to check the consistency. Finally, discrepancies in item contents, words and meanings were checked through comparing and analyzing the translated and English language questionnaires.

The supervisor and data collectors were trained on the tools and data collection approaches. The practical session was also employed including visiting workshops, exercise data collection and rehearsing the activities. The questionnaire was pretested outside of the study area in similar workshops at Shashamane town. Modified data collection approaches (interview instead of self-administered), interview location (private location instead of at the workplace) and question order modifications were done after the pretest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We conducted the study after having ethical clearance from Hawassa University College of Medicine and Health Sciences Institutional Review Board. A letter of permission was obtained from concerned governmental offices. Before performing data collection, verbal and written consent were obtained from each study participant.

Data analysis

Error checking and coding were done before the data were entered into Epi Info version 7 software. The data was cleaned and analyzed with the statistical package for the social sciences software (SPSS) version 20 (S2). Descriptive findings were presented in frequency tables and the prevalence was reported in proportion with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The presence of a statistical relationship between different independent variables and the outcome variable was assessed using logistic regression and chi-square tests with crude odds ratio. To reduce an excessive number of independent variables and an unstable estimate in the final model, all variables with a p-value below 0.2 with the dependent variable in the bivariate analysis were selected for multivariable logistic regression [4851].

A multi co-linearity assumption was checked. The result revealed a variance inflation factor <2 and tolerances >0.6. The required assumptions of the logistic regression were checked with Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test, which showed chi-squared test, X2 = 8.17, with a degree of freedom of 8 and a significance equal to 0.42. Finally, variables with a p-value of less than 0.05 were considered as statistically significant with 95% CI in the multivariate analysis.

Operational definitions

Vehicle

Self-propelled machinery, including large-sized (bus and truck) and other small-sized (sedan/saloon cars, minibus/minivan, and SUVs/4WDs) that do not operate on rails (such as trains or trams) which are used for the transportation of people or cargo [52].

Vehicle repair worker

Male or female workers who are directly engaged in services that keep vehicle features and systems running smoothly.

Job stress

A score measured using the workplace stress scale as YES (16 to 40) and NO (lower than or equal 15) [31, 36, 53].

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders

A self-reported pain, ache, or discomfort for at least 2–3 workdays during the last 12 months affecting any part of the neck, shoulder, upper back, lower back, hip/thigh, knee/leg, and ankle/foot and wrist/hand. These symptoms appear at work and often disappear during rest and may continue after work ends [54]. Based on the NMQ-E screening tool, at least one symptom on any part of nine body regions over 12 months prior to the study was considered as WMSD YES; otherwise NO [32].

Job satisfaction

A score measured using the job satisfaction scale as YES (32–45) and NO (10–31) [31, 33, 34].

Body mass index

Body mass index is calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters (kg/m2) [55].

  • Underweight = BMI <18.50

  • Normal range = BMI between 18.50–24.99

  • Overweight = BMI between 25.00–29.99

  • Obese = BMI > 30.00

Khat chewing: Khat (pronounced “cot”)

A stimulant drug derived from a shrub (Catha edulis) that is native to East Africa and southern Arabia. Leaves of the khat shrub are typically chewed and held in the cheek, like chewing tobacco, to release their stimulant chemicals [56].

Nonuser

A person who has never used khat within 30 days preceding the study [57, 58].

Current user

A person who was chewing khat within 30 days preceding the study [57, 58].

Cigarette smoking

The practice of smoking at least one cigarette per day [59].

Alcohol drinking

The consumption of any kind of alcohol at least two times per week [60].

Physical exercise

Includes exercise in any kind of sports or physical activity at least two times per week with a duration of 30 minutes [27].

Result

Socio-demographic characteristics

This study included 273 participants from 38 private vehicle repair workshops and 71 participants from 3 government vehicle repair workshops. The response rate was 99.1%. Among the participants, 340 (98.8%) were male, 155 (45.1%) were 18–29 years old and the mean age was 32.3 years (standard deviation ±8.8). A majority (70.1%) were chief/senior job positions. About one-third of workers were educated up to the tertiary level and had more than 10 years of work experience in a vehicle repair workshop. The mean income of participants was 3690.7 Ethiopian birr (standard deviation ±1799.5) (Table 1).

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of vehicle repair workers in Hawassa city, Ethiopia, 2019.

Variables categories Frequency (n = 344) Percentage
Marital status
    Single 153 44.5
    Married, cohabitating 154 44.8
    Divorce 25 7.3
    Widowed 12 3.5
Age category
    18–29 155 45.1
    >29 189 54.9
Education Status
    No Formal Education 11 3.2
    Primary Education 104 30.2
    Secondary Education 114 33.1
    Tertiary and above 115 33.4
Years of Service
    ≤5 Years 112 32.6
    6–10 Years 110 32.0
    >10 Years 122 35.5
Employment status
    Permanent worker 322 93.6
    Temporary/Contract worker 22 6.4
Job Position
    Chief/Senior 241 70.1
    Assistance 103 29.9
Monthly net income Ethiopian birr
    <2500 95 27.6
    2500–5000 196 57.0
    >5000 53 15.4

Personal characteristics

Of 344 participants, 147 (42.7%) practiced regular physical exercise. The type of activities engaged in after leaving work were: the same types of work, 116 (33.7%); watching movies and reading, 142 (41.3%); and other (play games, sport, social activities), 86 (25.0%). Among the participants, the following behaviors were reported: cigarette smoking, 117 (34%); alcohol drinking, 195 (56.7%); and khat chewing, 176 (51.2%).

A total of 188 (54.7%) respondents informed their work satisfaction status as satisfied. For BMI results, 260 (75.6%) were normal, 50 (14.5%) were overweight, 24 (7.0%) were underweight, and 10 (2.9%) were obese. Regarding WMSD, 164 (47.7%) reported at least one the symptoms in the last 12 months.

Work environment characteristics

The majority of participants, 228 (66.3%) had no training in general workplace safety. Among the participants, 150 (43.6%) were mechanical repair workers and 132 (38.4%) spent more than 48 hours in their job per week. Other workplace considerations reported were insufficient staff, 161 (46.8%); working in an area of inadequate space, 193 (56.1%); and routinely lifting loads greater than 20 kg, 147 (42.7%) (Table 2).

Table 2. Work environment characteristics of vehicle repair workers in Hawassa City, Ethiopia, 2019.

Variables categories Frequency (n = 344) Percent (%)
Professional Training
    Yes 156 45.3
    No 188 54.7
Health and Safety-related training
    Yes 116 33.7
    No 228 66.3
Type of Vehicle serviced
    Large sized (bus or truck) 115 33.4
    Small sized (sedan/saloon cars, 229 66.6
    minibus/minivan, and SUVs/4WDs)
Job category/ responsibility
    Mechanical repair 150 43.6
    Electrical repair 71 20.6
    Body beating/wielding 77 22.4
    Spray painting 32 9.3
    Other # 14 4.1
Inadequate number of staff
    Yes 161 46.8
    No 183 53.2
Type of floor at work site
    Concrete 130 37.8
    Gravel 125 36.3
    No ground cover 89 25.9
Inadequate workspace
    Yes 193 56.1
    No 151 43.9
Heavy loads job more than 20kg routinely
    Yes 147 42.7
    No 197 57.3
Most commonly adopted work posture
    Standing 128 37.2
    Bending 103 29.9
    Kneeling 49 14.2
    Sitting 15 4.4
    Squatting, prone position on the ground 49 14.2

#Note: Repair associated activities (like seat repair, radiator repair work, etc.…)

Prevalence and factors associated with work-related stress

The overall prevalence of work-related stress among vehicle repair workers in Hawassa city, Ethiopia was found to be 41.6% [95% CI (36.3–47.1)].

In the bivariate logistic regression analysis, all variables were analyzed to select the candidate independent variables for multivariable logistic regression. Variables with a p-value of less than 0.2 in the bivariate logistic regression analysis were selected. Socio-demographic variables (educational status, employment status and service year), personal related characteristics (physical exercise, type of activity engage in after leaving the work, alcohol drinking, Khat chewing and work-related musculoskeletal disorder) and work environment (health and safety-related training, type of vehicle serviced, type of vehicle workshop, inadequate number of staff, inadequate workspace, a heavy loads job more than 20kg routinely and work posture) were fitted and selected for the multivariable logistic regression model. Service year [AOR: 2.40; 95% CI (1.29–4.50)], work-related musculoskeletal disorder [AOR: 3.39; 95% CI (1.99–5.78)], servicing of large-sized vehicles [AOR: 1.96; 95% CI (1.14–3.38)] and working in squatting and lying work posture [AOR: 4.63; 95% CI (1.61–13.3)] were found to be associated with a higher likelihood of work-related stress (Table 3).

Table 3. Multivariate logistic regression of factors associated with work-related stress among vehicle repair workers in Hawassa city, Ethiopia, May 2019.

Variable name Stress status (n = 344) Crude OR (95%CI) Adjusted OR (95%CI)
Yes (%) No (%)
Education Status
    No Formal 5 (45.5) 6 (54.5) 080 (0.23–2.79) 1.22 (0.29–5.21)
    Primary 53 (51.0) 51 (49.0) 1.48 (0.43–5.16) 0.69 (0.37–1.29)
    Secondary 41 (36.0) 73 (64.0) 1.35 (0.39–4.67) 1.13 (0.60–2.11)
    Tertiary 44 (38.3) 71 (61.7) 1 1
Employment status
    Permanent 137 (42.5) 185 (57.5) 1 1
    Temporary/Contract 6 (27.3) 16 (72.7) 2.0 (0.75–5.18) 2.05 (0.68–6.18)
Year of service
    ≤5 54 (48.2) 58 (51.8) 1 1
    6–10 44 (40.0) 66 (60.0) 1.40 (0.82–2.38) 2.09 (1.10–3.98) *
    >10 45 (36.9) 77 (63.1) 1.59 (0.95–2.69) 2.40 (1.29–4.50)*
Alcohol drinking
    Yes 88 (45.1) 107 (54.9) 1.41(0.91–2.17) 1.22 (0.72–2.08)
    No 55 (36.9) 94 (63.1) 1
Khat chewing
    Non-user 62 (36.9) 106 (63.1) 1
    Current user 81 (46.0) 95 (54.0) 1.46 (0.95–2.24) 1.48 (0.87–2.52)
Activity engaged after leaving work
    The same types of work 60 (51.7) 56 (48.3) 1.8 (1.10–2.96) * 1.23 (0.68–2.20)
    Watching movies and Reading 53 (37.3) 89 (62.7) 2.0 (1.13–3.55) * 1.26 (0.63–2.5)
    Play game, sport, social activities 30 (34.9) 56 (65.1) 1 1
Regular physical exercise
    Yes 55 (37.4) 92 (62.6) 1 1
    No 88 (44.7) 109 (55.3) 0.74 (0.48–1.45) 0.87 (0.52–1.47)
WMSD
    Yes 93 (56.7) 71 (43.3) 3.41 (2.17–5.34) * 3.39 (1.99–5.78) *
    No 50 (27.8) 130 (72.2) 1 1
Safety-related training
    Yes 39 (33.6) 77 (66.4) 1 1
    No 104(45.6) 124 (54.4) 1.65 (1.04–2.64) * 1.28 (0.75–2.18)
Type of vehicle workshop
    Private owned 120 (44.0) 153(56.0) 1.63 (0.94–2.84) 1.06 (0.48–2.34)
    Government-owned 23 (32.4) 48 (67.6) 1 1
Type of vehicle serviced
    Large sized 55 (47.8) 60 (52.2) 1.47 (0.93–2.31) 1.96 (1.14–3.38) *
    Small sized 88 (38.4) 141 (61.6) 1 1
Inadequate workspace
    Yes 90 (46.6) 103 (53.4) 1.62 (1.04–2.50) * 1.18 (0.69–2.01)
    No 53 (35.1) 98 (64.9) 1 1
Routinely lifting greater than 20 kg
    Yes 70 (47.6) 77 (52.4) 1.54 (1.00–2.38) * 1.22 (0.73–2.04)
    No 73 (37.1) 124 (62.9) 1 1
Inadequate number of staff
    Yes 77 (47.8) 84 (52.2) 1.63 (1.06–2.50) * 1.30 (0.77–2.19)
    No 66 (36.1) 117 (63.9) 1 1
Most commonly adopted work posture
    Standing 65 (50.8) 63 49.2) 1 1
    Sitting 2 (13.3) 13 (86.7) 6.7 (1.45–30.9) * 5.35 (1.07–26.6) *
    Kneeling 26 (53.1) 23 (46.9) 0.91 (0.47–1.76) 0.82 (0.39–1.75)
    Bending 38 (36.9) 65 (63.1) 1.76 (1.03–3.00) * 2.05 (1.06–3.96) *
    Squatting, prone position on the ground 12 (24.5) 37 (75.5) 3.18 (1.52–6.65) * 4.63 (1.61–13.3) *

*p-value <0.05

Discussion

Workplace stress is a public health problem for employees worldwide. Studies focusing on work-related stress in African countries are scarce, especially among vehicle repair workers [28, 61]. This study revealed the prevalence and factors associated with work-related stress.

The present study indicated that 41.6% [95% CI (36.3–47.1)] of the participants experienced work-related stress. The current prevalence was in line with the study reported among vehicle repair workers in India (47%) [20] and shoe manufacturing workers in Ethiopia (40.4%) [16]. However, our findings had a higher prevalence than among textile factory workers in Republic of Congo (28%) [19] and the secondary school teacher study in Malaysia (32.3%) [62]. It was also lower than those of studies among female domestic workers in Lucknow, India (77%) [38] social workers in the United States of America (81.8%) [37] and medical educators in Pakistan (94%) [36]. Due to the scarcity of similar studies, prevalence estimates are difficult to compare, especially with findings from a similar work environment using similar measures. That said, the discrepancy of the findings might be due to work environment differences (i.e., for all studies except vehicle repair workers in India), local context including perceptions and traditions, measuring tools (Congo and Malaysia), and individual living standards, which could have effects on findings being either high or low prevalence [63].

In the current study, years of service, work-related musculoskeletal disorders, servicing large-sized vehicles and work postures were associated with work-related stress. Participants with >10 years of service [AOR: 2.40; 95% CI (1.29–4.50)], had twice the odds of having workplace stress compared with those who worked ≤5 years. This finding is inconsistent with other studies among workers in health care, academic, and manufacturing industries where those who had more work experience reported a lower odds of workplace stress [12, 14, 16, 19]. A possible explanation for the difference could be the exposure of vehicle repair workers to chemicals like petroleum products and heavy metals for long periods [2023]. This might increase the likelihood of stress development by affecting changes in biochemical levels [11, 21] and nerve damage or peripheral neuropathy [20]. Peripheral neuropathy is the inflammation or damage of the peripheral nerves, which connect the central nervous system to the muscles, glands, senses, and other internal organs, causing numbness in the hands and feet [64]. This type of nerve damage might contribute to stress development [65].

Moreover, this study showed work-related musculoskeletal disorders were significantly associated with work-related stress. Workers who reported musculoskeletal disorders [AOR: 3.39; 95% CI (1.99–5.78)] had more than three times the odds of having workplace stress than individuals who did not report MSDs. One reason may be that many stressed individuals might report musculoskeletal disorders and justify that stress and WMSDs have a relationship [66, 67].

Also, this finding indicated that servicing large-sized vehicles [AOR: 1.96; 95% CI (1.14–3.38)] and squatting and lying work postures [AOR: 4.63; 95% CI (1.61–13.3)] were associated with workplace stress. The report showed that individuals who serviced buses and trucks had more odds of having workplace stress than workers servicing small-sized vehicles. Workers servicing large-sized vehicles might be well experienced and have long service years compared to small-sized vehicle repair workers. Exposure duration to chemicals might have a contribution to the stress difference among workers group [2023]. The odds of workplace stress among employees who reported working their job in a squatting and lying posture was more than four times than those who did not engage in such posture. The possible explanation could be that poor physical environment and ergonomics hazards contribute to workplace stress [16, 66].

Though this study was able to provide important data on work-related stress among vehicle repair workers, several limitations are noted. Since this finding was reported on existing data and focused on workplace stress as the outcome, psychosocial work factors, especially those related to the organizational risk factors, were missed. We believe that the study provided a reasonably accurate assessment of work-related stress and associated factors.

Conclusions

This study shows that the overall prevalence of work-related stress was substantially high among vehicle repair workers in Hawassa City, Ethiopia. The most important independent risk factors identified by a multivariable logistic regression model were work experience, work-related musculoskeletal disorder, servicing large-sized vehicles, and squatting and lying work postures. In other words, these factors were workers’ years of service, symptoms of pain on various body regions, and the work environment. Therefore, preventive measures need to be implemented on the reduction of workplace stress among vehicle repair workers by focusing on work environment improvements. Further studies in the broadest context are recommended.

Supporting information

S1 File. English version of consent form and questionnaire.

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Data set used for analysis.

(SAV)

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the Hawassa University, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Research and Community Service Office that allowed us to conduct the study. We thank the vehicle repair workers, managers and data collectors for giving their valuable time and cooperation during the data collection period.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

References

  • 1.International Labor Organization (ILO), Work place Stress: A collective challenge. 2016: Geneva.
  • 2.World Health Organization (WHO). Occupational health: Stress at the workplace. 2021 24/02/2021]; Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/ccupational-health-stress-at-the-workplace.
  • 3.Heer V., Subir D., and Shashank M., Occupational Injuries in Automobile Repair Workers. Industrial Health 2011. 49(5): p. 642–51. 10.2486/indhealth.ms1294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hailemichael M., Yefokir T., and Meaza G., Nonfatal Occupational Injuries among Workers in Microscale and Small-Scale Woodworking Enterprise in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2020. 2020(Article ID 6407236). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gebrekiros G., Abera K., and Dessalegn A., Assessment of the prevalence and associated factors of occupational injury among workers in Arba Minch Textile factory. Occupational Medicine and Health Affairs, 2015. 3. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Aiggan T., et al., Musculoskeletal Disorders and Associated Factors among Vehicle Repair Workers in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2020. 2020(Article ID 9472357). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Shukriah A, Baba M.D., and Jaharah A.G., Prevalence and factors contributing to musculoskeletal disorder among garage worker in Malaysia. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 2017. 9(s5). [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Eva B., et al., Long-term occupational stress is associated with regional reductions in brain tissue volumes. PLOS ONE, 2013. 8(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kristie T., O., et al., REDD1 is essential for stress-induced synaptic loss and depressive behavior. Nat Med, 2014. 20(5): p. 531–535. 10.1038/nm.3513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Paul HB., The inflammatory response is an integral part of the stress response: Implications for atherosclerosis, insulin resistance, type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome X. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 2003. 5: p. 350–64. 10.1016/s0889-1591(03)00048-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zerihun A., Abraham G., and Fekadu U., Occupational health risk of working in garages: comparative study on blood pressure and hematological parameters between garage workers and Haramaya University community,Harar, eastern Ethiopia. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 2018. 11: p. 35–44. 10.2147/RMHP.S154611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Selam G. and Balew Z., Workplace stress and associated factors among healthcare professionals working in public health care facilities in Bahir Dar City, Northwest Ethiopia, 2017. BMC Research Notes, 2019. 12(249). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Selamawit S. and Amanuel A., Work-Related Stress and Associated Factors Among Nurses Working in Public Hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A Cross-sectional Study. Workplace health & safety, 2014. 62(8): p. 326–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gebisa G. and Sintayehu D., Perceived work-related stress and its associated factors among public secondary school teachers in Gondar city: a cross-sectional study from Ethiopia. BMC Research Notes, 2020. 13(36). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gebisa G., et al., Work-related Stress and Associated Factors among Academic Staffs at the University of Gondar, Northwest Ethiopia: An Institutionbased Cross-sectional Study. Ethiopian Journal of Health Science, 2020. 30(2): p. 223–232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Morke M., Mulat G., and Destaw F., Work related stress and associated factors among Huajian shoe manufacturing employees in Dukem town, central Ethiopia. BMC Research Notes, 2018. 11(610). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jin W., et al., Occupational Stress and Risk Factors Among Workers from Electronic Manufacturing Service Companies in China. China CDC Weekly, 2020. 2(9). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mathangi V., Impact of job stress on employees’ job performance in Aavin, coimbatore. Journal of Organisation & Human Behaviour, 2017. 6(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Panda K. and Philippe M., Occupational Stress among Textile Workers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Tropical Medicine and Health 2015. 43(4): p. 223–231. 10.2149/tmh.2015-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mathew P., et al., A study on morbidity among automobile service and repair workers in an urban area of South India. Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2014. 18(1): p. 9–12. 10.4103/0019-5278.134946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zerihun A., Abraham G., and Fekadu U., Chemical exposure in garage workers and related health risks on the biochemical levels: A comparative study in Harar town, eastern Ethiopia. SAGE Open Medicine, 2019. 7: p. 1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yalemsew A., Argaw A., and Dejene T., Occupational lead exposure among automotive garage workers–a case study for Jimma town,Ethiopia. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 2012. 7(15). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Samuel K., et al., Solvent neurotoxicity in vehicle collision repair workers in New Zealand. NeuroToxicology 2016. 57: p. 223–229. 10.1016/j.neuro.2016.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Torp S., Riise T., and Moen B. E., Work-related musculoskeletal symptoms among car mechanics: a descriptive study. Occupational Medicine 1996. 46(6): p. 407–413. 10.1093/occmed/46.6.407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Attwa E and El-Laithy N, Contact dermatitis in car repair workers. JEADV, 2009. 23(2): p. 138–145 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2008.02952.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mohammad J., et al., Occupational hand dermatitis in car repair workers. AIMS Public Health, 2019. 6(4): p. 577–586. 10.3934/publichealth.2019.4.577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ukachukwu A., et al., Work-related back discomfort and associated factors among automotive maintenance mechanics in Eastern Nigeria: a cross sectional study. Work, 2016. 53(4). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Abera K., et al., Occupational Health and Safety in Ethiopia: A review of Situational Analysis and Needs Assessment. Ethiopia Journal Health Development, 2016. 30(1). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hawasa City transport bureau, Data of Vehicle Repair workshop. 2019: Un published.
  • 30.The American Institute of Stress, The Marlin Company, Attitudes in the American Workplace VII:The Seventh Annual Labor Day Survey. 2001.
  • 31.Scott Macdonald and P. Maclntyre, The Generic Job Satisfaction Scale: Scale Development and Its Correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterlly, 1997. 13(2). [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Mohammad D.H., et al., Prevalence of work related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) and ergonomic risk assessment among readymade garment workers of Bangladesh: A cross sectional study. PLOS ONE, 2018. 13(7). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tekile T. and Abera K., Prevalence and factors affecting work-related injury among workers engaged in small and medium-scale industries in Gondar wereda, North Gondor zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of Health Development, 2007. 21(1): p. 25–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sina T.T. and Sintayehu K.K., Occupational-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders and Associated Factors among Beauty Salon Workers, Adama Town, South-Eastern Ethiopia, 2018. Journal of Ergonomics, 2020. 9(5). [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Soltan M. R., et al., Workplace-related stress among oncologists: Egyptian single-centered observational study. Middle East Current Psychiatry, 2020. 27(19). [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Seema D., Rootaba K., and Hajra S., Stress in Medical Educators Professional Medical Journal, 2012. 19(3): p. 404–410. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Evan S., Shulamith L.A.S., and Jeffrey S., The Work Experiences of Social Workers: Factors Impacting Compassion Satisfaction and Workplace Stress. Journal of Social Service Research, 2020. 46(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Shatakshi K., Shalini A., and Khwairakpam S., Workplace stress of Female Domestic Workers Residing in Lucknow. Journal of Seybold Report 2020. 15(9). [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tesfaye H.M., Dawit G.Y., and Demiss M.G., Physical environmental and occupational factors inducing work-related neck and shoulder pains among self-employed tailors of informal sectors in Ethiopia, 2019: results from a community based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2020. 20(1265). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yousef J., et al., Workplace aggression, psychological distress, and job satisfaction among Palestinian nurses: A cross-sectional study. Applied Nursing Research, 2016. 32(2016): p. 190–198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dereje D., Solomon M.A., and Atalay G., Work-related musculoskeletal disorders and associated factors among bank workers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine 2020. 25(33). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Anna D., et al., Development and Test–Retest Reliability of an Extended Version of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ-E): A Screening Instrument for Musculoskeletal Pain. The Journal of Pain, 2009. 10(5): p. 517–526. 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Joanne O.C., The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire. Occupational Medicine 2007. 57: p. 300–301. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Élise P.L., Vincent C., and Martin D., Assessment of musculoskeletal symptoms and their impacts in the adolescent population: adaptation and validation of a questionnaire. BMC Pediatrics 2014. 14(173). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Fahad S.A., Shaji J.K., and Sami S.A., A Cross-Sectional Study on the Association of Patterns and Physical Risk Factors with Musculoskeletal Disorders among Academicians in Saudi Arabia. BioMed Research International, 2020. 2020(Article ID 8930968). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Drieskens S., et al., Correction of self-reported BMI based on objective measurements: a Belgian experience. Archives of Public Health 2018. 76(10). 10.1186/s13690-018-0255-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tesfaye H.M., Giziew A., and Shalema W.O., Risk Factors Associated with Upper Extremity Musculoskeletal Disorders among Barbers in Gondar Town, Northwest Ethiopia, 2018: A Cross-Sectional Study. Pain Research and Management, 2019. 2019(Article ID 6984719). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zoran B., et al., Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code for Biology and Medicine 2008. 3(173). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Paul H., L. and Igor B., Identification of confounder in epidemiologic data contaminated by measurement error in covariates,. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2016. 16(54). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Masataka I., et al., Risk factors for short-term outcomes after thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer. European Respiratory Journal 2016. 48: p. 495–503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Suzana B.C., et al., Derivation of a clinical decision rule for predictive factors for the development of pharyngocutaneous fistula postlaryngectomy. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 2015. 81(4): p. 394–401. 10.1016/j.bjorl.2014.09.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Chien-Hsun W., Optimization of steering control to improve the energy consumption of internal combustion engine vehicles. Heliyon, 2019. 5(12). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Shubhangi J., et al., To Assess the Level of Workplace Stress among 18-45yr Patients Admitted with Myocardial Infarction. International Journal of Health Sciences & Research 2018. 8(4). [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Elke S. and Xabier I., OSH in figures: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the EU-Facts and figures. 2010, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: Luxembourg, Belgium. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Solomon M.A., et al., Prevalence and Associated Factors of Hypertension: A Crossectional Community Based Study in Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 2015. 12(113). [Google Scholar]
  • 56.NIH. Drug facts. 2013 28/08/2020]; Available from: https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drug_chem_info/khat.pdf.
  • 57.Andargachew K., Negash W., and Fiker T., Determinants of alcohol use and khat chewing among Hawassa University students, Ethiopia: a cross sectional study. African Health Sciences 2016. 16(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Demewoz H. and Yihunie L., Khat Chewing Practice and Associated Factors among Adults in Ethiopia: Further Analysis Using the 2011 Demographic and Health Survey. PLOS ONE, 2015. 10(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Jui-Ting L., et al., Cigarette smoking might impair memory and sleep quality. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 2013. 112: p. 287–290. 10.1016/j.jfma.2011.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Randi W.A., et al., The influence of alcohol consumption on sickness presenteeism and impaired daily activities. The WIRUS screening study. PLOS ONE, 2017. 12(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Nuwayhid IA, Occupational Health Research in Developing Countries: A Partner for Social Justice. American Journal of Public Health, 2004. 94(11): p. 1916–1921. 10.2105/ajph.94.11.1916 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Zahiruddin O. and Vevehkanandar S., Depression, anxiety, and stress among secondary school teachers in Klang, Malaysia. International Medical Journal, 2019. 26(2): p. 71–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.George M., The relationship between workplace stress, and Job characteristics, individual differences, and mental health, in Centre for Occupational and Health Psychology, School o f Psychology 2008, Cardiff University: USA. p. 315. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.The British Medical Association, Illustrated Medical dictionary. 2013, UK: Penguin [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Samuel K., et al., Neuropsychological performance in solventexposed vehicle collision repair workers in New Zealand. PLOS ONE, 2017. 12(12). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.University of Oxford, Oxford Handbook of Occupational Health. 1st Edition ed. 2007, New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.National Academy of Sciences, Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace: Low Back and Upper Extremities 2001, Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Frank T Spradley

18 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-37255

Workplace stress and Associated Factors among Vehicle Repair Workers in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mulugeta,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

An expert in the field handled your manuscript, and we are appreciative of their time and contributions. Although interest was found in your study, several concerns arose that require your attention. Notably, there are serious concerns about the methodological approach to validation of your experimental parameters. Please address ALL of the reviewer's comments in your revised manuscript. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 21 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2) Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously.

3) You have mentioned that the questionnaire was pre-tested, but not whether it was validated. Please clarify if it was validated. If this did not occur, please provide the rationale for not validating the questionnaire.

4) In your discussions and conclusions please take care to avoid statements implying causality from correlational research. For example, avoid the use of terms such as "risk factors" or “effects” or “resulted in." Instead consistently use terms such as "associated with" or "associations."

5)  Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

- https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2020/9472357/

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32165812/

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The cross-sectional study aimed to examine the association of demographic, personal, and work characteristics with work stress among Ethiopian vehicle repair workers. Although this topic has been widely studied in developed countries, work condition in this population is rarely described and the study topic is important for work condition improving in developing countries. Nevertheless, this study has several major limitations that should be addressed. Frist, the authors included a lot of variables but in the method section, the statistic model was not clearly described. Second, this study would provide substantial contribution to occupational health literature if the validated and widely used work stress model can be incorporated (e.g., job control-demand model and effort-reward imbalance model). Unfortunately the risk factors for work stress in this study were not measured by validated tools. Below I listed my comments, and I hope they will help improve the manuscript.

Abstract:

The tools used to measure workplace stress and categories of independent variables should be clearly stated.

2.3 study variables:

BMI and WMSD were listed as independent variables, while musculoskeletal symptoms were listed in line 117-118 with other outcome variables. It is unclear which variables were treated as dependent and which were independent variables.

3.3 Job stress and 3.5 job satisfaction:

Please briefly describe how the cutoff point was chosen or validated in previous literature.

2.2 study population:

Among the 368 vehicle workers, 344 participated in the study. Were the 24 workers excluded from the study due to inadequate work duration, or diagnosis of diseases, or disagree with study participation? Please clarify.

3.4 Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) is measured by self-report symptoms. It is not clear what is the difference between WMSD here and the symptoms measured by NMQ-E in line 116-117, while the NMQ-E score seems not being included in the regression models.

Table 4 and 4.4 Prevalence and factors associated with work-related stress:

Please indicate what variables were included in the crude and adjusted models. Does the crude model the same as bivariate model mentioned in 2.4 data analysis line 148-151? In addition, the outcome variable in the logistic model in table 4 was work-related stress. It is unclear whether job satisfaction and musculoskeletal symptoms were outcome variables or independent variables? Because they were explained in the 2.3 study variable section, but were not seen in the logistic model.

5. Discussion:

The authors compared the prevalence of work stress in line 237-246. However, it is unclear whether work stress was measured by the same tool or questionnaire in these cited studies. If not, were the prevalence rates in these studies comparable?

In the last section of discussion (line 270-274), another limitation is that work psychosocial factors were not assessed using validated tools in the literature, such as job demand-control model, and effort-reward imbalance model. This study chose work stress as the outcome, but missed psychosocial work factors as risk factors.

6. conclusions

The authors are recommended to provide more objective implications for how to improve work environment of vehicle repairing workers. For example, for work postures, how should vehicle repairing company improve their settings to avoid awkward work positions?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 5;16(4):e0249640. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249640.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Feb 2021

We would like to thank the reviewers for the time and effort put on to revise our manuscript `` Prevalence of self-reported workplace stress and associated factors among vehicle repair workers in Hawassa City, South Ethiopia`` in detail. We believe that the comments have identified important areas that required improvement. We have revised in detail as PLOS One format. In addition, we did revision based on the editor`s comments and incorporated new information than what you commented. After completion of the suggested edits, the revised manuscript has benefitted from an improvement in the overall presentation and clarity.

Dear Reviewers thank you for your comment and support through all processes. We included new variables that we obtained after recategorized variables from the data set (SPSS). The following points are the response to your idea.

Issues from reviewers:

1. Abstract

• Abstract:

The tools used to measure workplace stress and categories of independent variables should be clearly stated.

Response

Accepted the comment: Thank you for the critical observation.

I have included the following information.

Questionnaires were administered using interviews. Additional tools were used for weight and height measurements.

Issues from reviewers:

2.Method section

2.3 study variables:

BMI and WMSD were listed as independent variables, while musculoskeletal symptoms were listed in line 117-118 with other outcome variables. It is unclear which variables were treated as dependent and which were independent variables

3.3 Job stress and 3.5 job satisfaction: Please briefly describe how the cutoff point was chosen or validated in previous literature.

Response

Dear Reviewer: It is right and I accepted the comment. I have described the issues in the manuscript document.

Both body mass index (BMI) and work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) were independent variables. Weight in kilogram and height in centimeter were measured. BMI was calculated in kilogram per meter square (kg/m2). A digital weight scale was used for assessing weight, and height.

WMSD symptoms were measured in nine body regions using the extended version of the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ-E). It is a valid, repeatable, sensitive and useful as a screening and surveillance tool.

# Both Job stress and job satisfaction were briefly described under the data collection tool and procedure topic.

Job stress:

We used the American Institute of Stress Scale to measure stress. It is a questionnaire; it was designed to apply a workplace stress data collection tool to assess job stress levels of the American workforce. The tool was validated by the American Institute of Stress. It is used to assess job stress among workers in a wide range of occupations and has been used in several studies for stress level evaluation. The questionnaire consists of eight items describing how often a respondent feels toward his or her job. The scale is in the five-point Likert response format, ranging from never (scored 1) to very often (scored 5). High scores are indicative of higher levels of job stress except item numbers 6, 7, and 8 are reverse-scored. The total scores are interpreted as follows: scores of 15 and below: relatively calm and stress isn’t much of an issue, 16–20: fairly low, 21–25: moderate levels of work stress, 26–30: severe levels of work stress, and 31–40: potentially dangerous level of work stress.

Interpretation of the current study: Job Stress was YES if the score measured was 16-40 and NO if the result was lower than or equal to 15.

Job satisfaction:

We used the Generic job satisfaction scale to assess the level of satisfaction. It is a questionnaire; was developed to collect job satisfaction levels among peoples in Ontario, Canada. The tool was validated by different studies and it is also used in a wide range of occupational groups. The questionnaire consists of ten items. Each item had a 5-point Likert response from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The scores are interpreted 42-50: very high, 39-41: high, 32-38: average, 27-3l: low and 10-25: very low

Interpretation of the current study: Using the job satisfaction scale YES if a measured score was 32–45 and NO if the result was lower than or equal to 10–31. No result greater than 45 and less than 10 scores was found in our study.

Issues from reviewers:

2.2 study population:

Among the 368 vehicle workers, 344 participated in the study. Were the 24 workers excluded from the study due to inadequate work duration, or diagnosis of diseases, or disagree with study participation? Please clarify.

Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much. I accepted the comment and wrote the reason under the study population and result topic.

A total of 21 workers didn’t fit the eligibility criteria and three participants disagreed to participate. A total of 344 vehicle repair workers participated in this study giving a response rate of 99.1%.

Issues from reviewers:

3.4 Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD) is measured by self-report symptoms. It is not clear what is the difference between WMSD here and the symptoms measured by NMQ-E in line 116-117, while the NMQ-E score seems not being included in the regression models.

Response

Dear Reviewer! I accepted the comment and revised it.

WMSDs are defined as injuries or disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, joints, cartilage, and spinal discs that may be associated with the work environment and performance of work. And due to the disorder, workers might report pain, ache, or discomfort in nine body regions. These symptoms appear at work and often disappear during rest or exit in life long time.

We did not apply any diagnostic instrument without the screening tool of NMQ-E. All response options of the questionnaire were dichotomous (yes/no). At least one symptom on any body part of nine body region over 12 months prior to the study was considered as WMSD Yes Otherwise NO.

WMSD is described under the operational definition topic based and WMSD Yes/No response was included in the regression models and presented in Table 3.

Issues from reviewers:

3. Result

Table 4 and 4.4 Prevalence and factors associated with work-related stress: Please indicate what variables were included in the crude and adjusted models. Does the crude model the same as the bivariate model mentioned in 2.4 data analysis line 148-151? In addition, the outcome variable in the logistic model in table 4 was work-related stress. It is unclear whether job satisfaction and musculoskeletal symptoms were outcome variables or independent variables? Because they were explained in the 2.3 study variable section but were not seen in the logistic model.

Response

Accepted the comment: Topic 2.4 data analysis and 4.4 Prevalence and factors associated with work-related stress needed clarity. We revised it to make it more understandable. The following points might answer your question.

Method:

The bivariate logistic regression model shows the relation between independent variables with workplace stress (outcome or dependent variable). Therefore; one independent variable was interred into bivariate logistic regression at a time; then the model gave the relationship between one independent variable and a given outcome variable. But it shows a crude.

Multivariable logistic regression model shows the relation between an independent variable with workplace stress through adjusting cofounder /other independent variables. Therefore; more than two independent variables were entered into the model; then the model gave the relationship between one independent and a given outcome variable through adjusting cofounder or other explanatory independent variables at a time in a different row of a table. But the output of the model is affected or unstable if a large number of variables were entered into the model at a time. Since there were many independent variables in the current study, each variable was analyzed using bivariate logistic regression to select candidates for multivariable logistic regression. This step was help us to reduce an excessive number of variables and an unstable estimate in the final model. Finally, all independent variables with a p-value below 0.2 with the dependent variable in the bivariate analysis were selected for multivariable analysis.

Result:

Socio-demographic variables (educational status, employment status and service year), personal related characteristics (physical exercise, type of activity engage in after leaving the work, alcohol drinking, chewed Khat and work-related musculoskeletal disorder) and work environment (health and safety-related training, type of vehicle serviced, type of vehicle workshop, inadequate number of staff, inadequate workspace, a heavy loads job more than 20kg routinely and work posture) were fitted and selected for the multivariable logistic regression model. Service year [AOR: 2.40; 95% CI (1.29-4.50)], work-related musculoskeletal disorder [AOR: 3.39; 95% CI (1.99-5.78)], serviced large-sized vehicle [AOR: 2.03; 95% CI (1.16-3.54)] and working in squatting and lying work posture [AOR: 4.63; 95% CI (1.61-13.3)] were found to be associated with a higher likelihood of work-related stress (Table 3).

Both job satisfaction and Musculoskeletal symptoms were explained as Work-related musculoskeletal disorder (WMSD) were independent variables. Job satisfaction was not selected for Multivariable logistic regression because of p- value>0.2 in bivariate logistic regression. According to the operational definition, a single musculoskeletal symptom count as WMSD yes. Therefore; musculoskeletal symptoms were found in the logistic regression in named of WMSD (table 3)

Issues from reviewers:

4. Discussion:

The authors compared the prevalence of work stress in line 237-246. However, it is unclear whether work stress was measured by the same tool or questionnaire in these cited studies. If not, were the prevalence rates in these studies comparable?

In the last section of discussion (line 270-274), another limitation is that work psychosocial factors were not assessed using validated tools in the literature, such as job demand-control model, and effort-reward imbalance model. This study chose work stress as the outcome but missed psychosocial work factors as risk factors.

Response

Accepted the comment: I have tried to find a similar study and used a similar tool. The studies, what we found based on similar tools were used to comparing. But it was difficult to find both similar study and the same tool. So that; we included other stress studies but the inconsistency was explained in the discussion part.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Frank T Spradley

12 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-37255R1

Workplace Stress and Associated Factors among Vehicle Repair Workers in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mulugeta,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I appreciated the authors' effort to revise the manuscipt, and I feel that my comments have been addressed and the clarity of the manuscript has improved. I have only two more commnets:

1. There is an obvious error in the revision page 6 section Study variables: ”workers’ stress status was the dependent variable. The dependent variable include…”

I think the authors mean “The independent variables include…”

2. This manuscript needs a thorough editing. For example, the limitation section has been duplicated. There are also many grammar errors that need to be corrected. Since I am not an English native speaker, I suggest tha authors to look for professional English-editing services.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 5;16(4):e0249640. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249640.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 Mar 2021

Point by point response to the reviewers

We would like to thank the reviewers for the time and effort put on to revise our manuscript `` Prevalence of self-reported workplace stress and associated factors among vehicle repair workers in Hawassa City, South Ethiopia`` in detail. We accepted your two issue and did revision. In addition, English language professional fixed the language related faults in the document.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Frank T Spradley

23 Mar 2021

Workplace Stress and Associated Factors among Vehicle Repair Workers in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia

PONE-D-20-37255R2

Dear Dr. Mulugeta,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Frank T Spradley

25 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-37255R2

Workplace Stress and Associated Factors among Vehicle Repair Workers in Hawassa City, Southern Ethiopia

Dear Dr. Mulugeta:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. English version of consent form and questionnaire.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Data set used for analysis.

    (SAV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES