International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2024
Vulnerability profiles of workers and the relation with burnout symptoms: results from the Netherlands working conditions survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bouwens Luuk, van Zon Sander K R, Peijen Roy, Vooijs Marloes
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Unfavorable working conditions may place workers in a vulnerable position in the labour market, but studies on the clustering of these factors and their relation to burnout symptoms are lacking. This study aims to identify subgroups of workers in potentially vulnerable positions in the labour market and examine whether burnout symptoms differ across the established subgroups.
METHODS: This study utilizes cross-sectional data from 2019 of the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey (n = 55,283). Working conditions included employment contracts, working hours, multiple jobs, tenure, physical strain, autonomy, and workload. Burnout symptoms were measured with five items on a 7-point Likert scale. Latent Class Analysis was used to identify vulnerability subgroups based on working conditions and educational level. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to examine whether burnout symptoms differed between the identified subgroups.
RESULTS: Three out of nine subgroups (i.e., classes 4, 6, and 7) presented combinations of multiple unfavourable working conditions. The vulnerability of class 4, characterized by low educational level, physically demanding work, low autonomy, and a high workload, was underscored by a significantly higher burnout symptom score (M = 2.91;SD = 0.97) compared to all other subgroups. Subgroups 3 (M = 2.69;SD = 1.43) and 8 (M = 2.41;SD = 1.41), without striking unfavourable conditions, had the second and third highest scores on burnout symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: Determining vulnerability in the labour market is not straightforward as not all profiles that presented clusters of unfavourable working conditions scored high on burnout symptoms, and vice versa. Future research should investigate whether findings are similar to other mental health outcomes.
METHODS: This study utilizes cross-sectional data from 2019 of the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey (n = 55,283). Working conditions included employment contracts, working hours, multiple jobs, tenure, physical strain, autonomy, and workload. Burnout symptoms were measured with five items on a 7-point Likert scale. Latent Class Analysis was used to identify vulnerability subgroups based on working conditions and educational level. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to examine whether burnout symptoms differed between the identified subgroups.
RESULTS: Three out of nine subgroups (i.e., classes 4, 6, and 7) presented combinations of multiple unfavourable working conditions. The vulnerability of class 4, characterized by low educational level, physically demanding work, low autonomy, and a high workload, was underscored by a significantly higher burnout symptom score (M = 2.91;SD = 0.97) compared to all other subgroups. Subgroups 3 (M = 2.69;SD = 1.43) and 8 (M = 2.41;SD = 1.41), without striking unfavourable conditions, had the second and third highest scores on burnout symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: Determining vulnerability in the labour market is not straightforward as not all profiles that presented clusters of unfavourable working conditions scored high on burnout symptoms, and vice versa. Future research should investigate whether findings are similar to other mental health outcomes.