Purpose: To examine differences between genders in exposure to psychosocial and ergonomic factors at work and in work-related health, according to different work organization models. Methods: The study population included a sample of 9749 (women: 37.1%) and 10,374 (women: 39.9%) employees who participated in the 2010 and 2015 European Working Conditions Surveys, respectively. Multiple Correspondence Analysis was applied to work characteristics reported by workers to estimate principal components, followed by Hierarchical Clustering on principal components to identify clusters of work organization models. Gender differences in exposure to work hazards and health outcomes were assessed through Poisson robust regression. Differences of PRs across organizational models were tested through interaction between gender and type of work organization. Results: Three organizational models were identified in 2010, including lean production, Tayloristic production, and a “reflexive production” model, whereas in 2015, a “simple” or traditional model was also found. In 2010, women employed in companies adopting the Tayloristic or the lean production models were more likely than men to be exposed to unfavourable psychosocial and physical work factors, and to report musculoskeletal pain, compared to those belonging to reflexive production. In 2015, a significantly higher female/male ratio persisted in lean production for exposure to high job strain and for carrying/moving heavy loads, whereas gender differences in Tayloristic and traditional production were quite similar to those of reflexive production. Conclusions: Our results suggest that employment in workplaces characterized by lower monotony, repetitiveness, and production constraints may contribute to reduce exposure to job strain among working women.

Impact of different work organizational models on gender differences in exposure to psychosocial and ergonomic hazards at work and in mental and physical health

Ricceri F.
;
Lazzarato F.;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: To examine differences between genders in exposure to psychosocial and ergonomic factors at work and in work-related health, according to different work organization models. Methods: The study population included a sample of 9749 (women: 37.1%) and 10,374 (women: 39.9%) employees who participated in the 2010 and 2015 European Working Conditions Surveys, respectively. Multiple Correspondence Analysis was applied to work characteristics reported by workers to estimate principal components, followed by Hierarchical Clustering on principal components to identify clusters of work organization models. Gender differences in exposure to work hazards and health outcomes were assessed through Poisson robust regression. Differences of PRs across organizational models were tested through interaction between gender and type of work organization. Results: Three organizational models were identified in 2010, including lean production, Tayloristic production, and a “reflexive production” model, whereas in 2015, a “simple” or traditional model was also found. In 2010, women employed in companies adopting the Tayloristic or the lean production models were more likely than men to be exposed to unfavourable psychosocial and physical work factors, and to report musculoskeletal pain, compared to those belonging to reflexive production. In 2015, a significantly higher female/male ratio persisted in lean production for exposure to high job strain and for carrying/moving heavy loads, whereas gender differences in Tayloristic and traditional production were quite similar to those of reflexive production. Conclusions: Our results suggest that employment in workplaces characterized by lower monotony, repetitiveness, and production constraints may contribute to reduce exposure to job strain among working women.
2021
94
1889
1904
Epidemiology; Gender; Health; Work hazards; Work organization
Migliore M.C.; Ricceri F.; Lazzarato F.; d'Errico A.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Miglioreetal2021_IAOEH.pdf

Accesso aperto

Dimensione 683.58 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
683.58 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1889522
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact