Satisfaction with life and the risk of occupational injury
10.1186/s40557-018-0260-x
- Author:
Sung Min PARK
1
;
Hwan Cheol KIM
;
Shin Goo PARK
;
Hyun Suk JANG
;
Go CHOI
;
Jong Han LEEM
Author Information
1. Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, School of Medicine, Inha University Hospital, 7-206 3rd St. Shinhung-dong, Jung-gu, Incheon, 400-711 Republic of Korea. carpediem@inha.ac.kr.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Satisfaction with life;
Occupational injury;
Occupational accident
- MeSH:
Accidents, Occupational;
Female;
Humans;
Incheon;
Logistic Models;
Male;
Occupational Injuries;
Odds Ratio
- From:Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
2018;30(1):49-
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Occupational injuries increase burden on society as well as personal health. Low satisfaction with life may not only increases the risk of occupational injuries directly, but also influences other factors that increase the risk of occupational injury. Along with previous studies on the risk of occupational injury, we sought to explore the relationship between satisfaction with life and occupational injury. METHODS: The study participants were 6234workers health screened at a university hospital in Incheon. Information on occupational injury and satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) was obtained in a self-report format. Participants were allocated to one of four SWLS groups; the dissatisfied group, the slightly dissatisfied group, the slightly satisfied group, and the satisfied group. The analysis was performed using the chi-square test primarily and by logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: In men, the un-adjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of low satisfaction with life (SWLS< 20) were 1.98(CI1.55–2.53) and 1.81(CI 1.41–2.32), respectively. When the SWLS were divided into four groups, the adjusted ORs of the slightly satisfied (20–25), slightly dissatisfied(15–19), and dissatisfied(≤14) groups were 1.21, 1.72, and 2.70, respectively. That is ORs tended to increase linearly with decreasing SWLS score (p for trend < 0.001). In women, this relation was of borderline significance at best. When subjects were dichotomized based on SWLS scores, for males, the cured and adjusted RRs of occupational injury in the low satisfaction with life group were1.91 (95% CI: 1.50–2.42) and 1.66 (95% CI: 1.30–2.13), and for females, the adjusted-RR was marginally significant (1.67; 95% CI: 0.93–2.99). When subjects were divided into four groups by SWLS scores, adjusted RRs tended to increase linearly with decreasing SWLS score for males (slightly satisfied: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.77–1.82; slightly dissatisfied: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.08–2.52; dissatisfied: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.44–3.42; p for trend < 0.001) and for females (slightly satisfied: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.42–3.30; slightly dissatisfied: 1.56, 95% CI: 0.56–4.36; dissatisfied: 2.38, 95% CI: 0.84–6.74; p for trend = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the risk of occupational injury was higher in workers not satisfied with life, and indicates attention to satisfaction with life may promote the health of workers.
