Job satisfaction of occupational physicians in commercial and other delivery settings: A comparative and explorative study

Objectives: Commercialization of occupational health services (OHS) and transition to a supplier market which started in 1995, has affected work and working conditions of occupational physicians (OPs) profoundly. OPs have lost influence on the organization of their work and managers took over control. This study explores the impact of commercialization on job satisfaction of occupational physicians. Material and Methods: Data were collected through a questionnaire completed by 797 OPs, members of the Netherlands Association of Occupational Medicine (response: 45%). A range of work satisfiers and dissatisfiers measures was included that, according to the Social Action Approach, could explain the variation in job satisfaction. Stepwise multivariate regression analyses were performed to explore to what extent the differences in job satisfaction can be attributed to the characteristics of the setting, biographical variables, satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Results: Occupational physicians in commercial settings had the lowest average score as regards job satisfaction (6.7) contrasting sharply with their colleagues in private practices (8.7) and in non-commercial settings (7.9). The variation in job satisfaction between delivery settings could largely be attributed to satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Biographical characteristics (age, gender) had no effect. The data suggested that not commercialization as such, but the ability of commercial OHS providers to integrate professional values was the crucial factor to bring about job satisfaction. Conclusions: The challenge for commercial OHS providers is to preserve the professional zeal in OPs by integrating professional values in their organization in order to improve the quality of the services and the attractiveness of the profession

The Heritability of Aptitude and Exceptional Talent Across Different Domains in Adolescents and Young Adults

The origin of individual differences in aptitude, defined as a domain-specific skill within the normal ability range, and talent, defined as a domain specific skill of exceptional quality, is under debate. The nature of the variation in aptitudes and exceptional talents across different domains was investigated in a population based twin sample. Self-report data from 1,685 twin pairs (12–24 years) were analyzed for Music, Arts, Writing, Language, Chess, Mathematics, Sports, Memory, and Knowledge. The influence of shared environment was small for both aptitude and talent. Additive and non-additive genetic effects explained the major part of the substantial familial clustering in the aptitude measures with heritability estimates ranging between .32 and .71. Heritability estimates for talents were higher and ranged between .50 and .92. In general, the genetic architecture for aptitude and talent was similar in men and women. Genetic factors contribute to a large extent to variation in aptitude and talent across different domains of intellectual, creative, and sports abilities

Review on the validity of self-report to assess work-related diseases

Self-report is an efficient and accepted means of assessing population characteristics, risk factors, and diseases. Little is known on the validity of self-reported work-related illness as an indicator of the presence of a work-related disease. This study reviews the evidence on (1) the validity of workers' self-reported illness and (2) on the validity of workers' self-assessed work relatedness of an illness. A systematic literature search was conducted in four databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and OSH-Update). Two reviewers independently performed the article selection and data extraction. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated, levels of agreement and predictive values were rated against predefined criteria, and sources of heterogeneity were explored. In 32 studies, workers' self-reports of health conditions were compared with the "reference standard" of expert opinion. We found that agreement was mainly low to moderate. Self-assessed work relatedness of a health condition was examined in only four studies, showing low-to-moderate agreement with expert assessment. The health condition, type of questionnaire, and the case definitions for both self-report and reference standards influence the results of validation studies. Workers' self-reported illness may provide valuable information on the presence of disease, although the generalizability of the findings is limited primarily to musculoskeletal and skin disorders. For case finding in a population at risk, e.g., an active workers' health surveillance program, a sensitive symptom questionnaire with a follow-up by a medical examination may be the best choice. Evidence on the validity of self-assessed work relatedness of a health condition is scarce. Adding well-developed questions to a specific medical diagnosis exploring the relationship between symptoms and work may be a good strateg