Job quality, health and at-work productivity

Many countries invest considerable resources into promoting employment and the creation of jobs. At the same time, policies and institutions still pay relatively little attention to the quality of jobs although job quality has been found to be a major driver of employee well being and may be an important factor for work productivity. Eventually, job quality might also influence labour supply choices and lead to higher employment. Providing robust evidence for the relationship between job quality and worker productivity could make a strong case for labour market policies directed at the improvement of job quality.This paper reviews existing evidence on the relationship between the quality of the work environment and individual at-work productivity, defined as reduced productivity while at work,and assesses the effect of health on this relationship. After screening 2319 studies from various fields and disciplines, including economics and medicine, 48studies are reviewed. Strong evidence is found for a negative relationship between job stress or job strain and individual at-work productivity and for a positive relationship between job rewards and productivity. Moderate evidence is found for a negative relationship between work-family conflict and at-work productivity and for a positive relationship between fairness at work and social support from co-workers and productivity. Health influences the relationship between the quality of the work environment and productivity.Specifically, the relationship is stronger for people in good health. Job quality needs a more prominent place in labour market policy. More attention needs to be paid to workers’ perceptions of the quality of their work environment and how policies and practices at both the level of the worker and the work environment may influence this.Furthermore, as health-related factors significantly influence the relationship between job quality and productivity, multidisciplinary approaches are needed to support at-work productivity

Inability to Work Fulltime, Prevalence and Associated Factors Among Applicants for Work Disability Benefit

Purpose Inability to work fulltime is an important outcome in the assessment of workers applying for a disability benefit. However, limited knowledge is available about the prevalence and degree of the inability to work fulltime, the associations between disease-related and socio-demographic factors with inability to work fulltime and whether the prevalence and the associations differ across disease groups. Methods Anonymized register data on assessments of workers with residual work capacity (n = 30,177, age 48.8 +/- 11.0, 53.9% female) applying for a work disability benefit in 2016 were used. Inability to work fulltime was defined as being able to work less than 8 h per day. Results The prevalence of inability to work fulltime was 39.4%, of these 62.5% could work up to 4 h per day. Higher age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.01), female gender (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.37-1.52), higher education (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.33-1.55) and multimorbidity (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) showed higher odds for inability to work fulltime. Highest odds for inability to work fulltime were found for diseases of the blood, neoplasms and diseases of the respiratory system. Within specific disease groups, different associations were identified between disease-related and socio-demographic factors. Conclusion The prevalence and degree of inability to work fulltime in work disability benefit assessments is high. Specific chronic diseases are found to have higher odds for inability to work fulltime, and associated factors differ per disease group

Residual work capacity and (in)ability to work fulltime among a year cohort of cancer survivors who claim a disability benefit

PURPOSE: Residual work capacity (RWC) and inability to work fulltime (IWF) are important outcomes in disability benefit assessments for workers diagnosed with cancer. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the prevalence of both outcomes, the associations of disease-related and socio-demographic factors and if these differ across cancer diagnosis groups.METHODS: A year cohort of anonymized register data of cancer survivors who claim a disability benefit after 2 years of sick leave (n = 3690, age 53.3 ± 8.8, 60.4% female) was used. Having no RWC was defined as having no possibilities to perform any work at all, whereas IWF was defined as being able to work less than 8 h per day.RESULTS: The prevalence of being assessed with no RWC was 42.6%. Of the applicants with RWC (57.4%), 69.8% were assessed with IWF. Cancers of the respiratory organs showed the highest odds for having no RWC, whereas lymphoid and haematopoietic cancers showed the highest odds for IWF. Within specific cancer diagnosis groups, different associations were identified for both outcomes.CONCLUSION: The prevalence of no RWC and IWF in applicants of work disability benefits diagnosed with cancer is high compared to the prevalence in other diagnoses. The odds for no RWC, IWF, and associated factors differ per cancer diagnosis group.IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Being diagnosed with cancer has an enormous impact on work (dis)ability. Our results show that 2 years after being diagnosed with cancer, the majority of the disability benefit applicants are assessed with RWC; however, only 15% of all applicants with cancer had a normal ability to work fulltime, and therefore, it is of great importance to accompany them in their return to work.</p

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the work role functioning questionnaire 2.0 to Persian

Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt, the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 to Persian (WRFQ-Pr), and evaluate reliability and validity. Material and Methods: Standardized protocols were followed including forward-backward translation then synthesis/consolidation. Subsequent pilot investigation of the draft WRFQ-Pr (n = 50, male = 68%, age = 33.5 ± 7.3 years) tested the alternative wording and determined face and content validity through readability, understandability, interpretation, and cultural relevance. Participants (n = 288) were recruited from a convenience sample to assess: construct validity through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using Promax rotation and maximum least squares extraction; and internal consistency using Cronbach’s α coefficient. Test-retest reliability was evaluated from the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2.1). Results: The forward-backward translation was achieved with eight items (1,3,4,5,9,11,12,22) modified and reformulated due to idiomatic issues. Internal consistency for the subscales ranged from α = 0.87–0.95, and the test-retest reliability was ICC(2,1)=0.92 (CI: 0.89–0.95). The EFA showed a four-factor solution, being identical to the original version, however items 20–22 loaded with items 23–26 in one factor, which was re-named “flexibility and social demand.” One item (#26) did not load above the required 0.30 threshold and was removed from the WRFQ-Pr. No floor or ceiling effects were found. Conclusions: The WRFQ translation and cross-cultural adaptation to Persian (WRFQ-Pr) was performed successfully. The determined properties of reliability and validity were comparable to those of the original English version.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION The WRFW can simultaneously evaluate the health status of the worker, the existence of impairments, the involved factors in creating ability/disability at work, and the outcome of the interventions. There is no instrument available for the Persian-speaking population to evaluate related disability at work and the condition of return to work after a rehabilitation intervention. The WRFQ was translated and culturally adapted into Persian. The WRFW-Pr demonstrated excellent internal consistency, test-retest reliability and a four-factor structure

Validation of the Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 in cancer patients

Objective The Work Role Functioning Questionnaire 2.0 (WRFQ), measuring the percentage of time a worker has difficulties in meeting the work demands for a given health state, has shown strong reliability and validity in various populations with different chronic conditions. The present study aims to validate the WRFQ in working cancer patients. Methods A validation study of the WRFQ 2.0 was conducted, using baseline data from the longitudinal Work Life after Cancer study. Structural validity (Confirmatory Factor Analysis, CFA), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and discriminant validity (hypothesis testing) were evaluated. Results 352 working cancer patients, most of them diagnosed with breast cancer (48%) and 58% in a job with mainly non-manual tasks, showed a mean WRFQ score of 78.6 (SD = 17.1), which means that they had on average difficulties for 78.6% of the time they spent working. Good internal consistency (alpha = 0.96) and acceptable to good fit for both the four and five-factor model (CFA) was found. The WRFQ distinguished between cancer patients reporting good vs. poor health (80.3 vs. 73.0, p = 0.001), low vs. high fatigue (82.0 vs. 72.2, p <0.001), no vs. clinical depression (80.4 vs. 58.8, p <0.001) and low vs. high cognitive symptoms (86.1 vs. 64.7, p <0.001). Conclusions The WRFQ 2.0 is a reliable and valid instrument to measure work functioning in working cancer patients. Further psychometric research on responsiveness is needed to support its use in health practice