Cited by 187Workplace Health and Well-beingOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesEmployment and Welfare Studies

Employee worktime control moderates the effects of job strain and effort-reward imbalance on sickness absence: the 10-town study

Open access
Ala-Mursula, Leena, Vahtera, Jussi, Linna, Anne, Pentti, Jaana, Kivimäki, Mika·2005·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Abstract

Study objective: To examine whether the effects of work stress on sickness absence vary by the level of control the employees have over their working times. Design: Prospective cohort study. A survey of job strain, effort-reward imbalance, and control over daily working hours and days off was carried out in 2000–01. The survey responses were linked with registered data on the number of medically certified (>3 days) sickness absences from one year before the survey until the end of 2003. The mean follow up period was 28.2 (SD 8.1) months. Adjustments were made for demographics and behavioural health risks. Aggregated measures of worktime control according to workplaces were used to control for differences in reactivity and response style. Setting: Ten towns in Finland. Participants: 16 139 public sector employees who had no medically certified sickness absences in the year preceding the survey. Main results: Among the women, individually measured control over daily working hours and days off moderated the association between work stress and sickness absence. The combination of high stress and good worktime control was associated with lower absence rates than a combination of high stress and poor worktime control. This finding was replicated in the analyses using workplace aggregates of worktime control. Among the men, the findings were less consistent and not replicable using aggregated measures of worktime control. Conclusions: Good control over working times reduces the adverse effect of work stress on sickness absence especially among female employees.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jech.2004.030924

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent studies have found evidence for a buffering effect of high worktime control on stress, sickness absence, and worklife balance (34-38).

    “Some recent studies indeed have found evidence for a buffering effect of high worktime control on stress, sickness absence, and worklife balance (34-38).”

    From A diary study to open up the black box of overtime work among university faculty members (2008) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Abstract and Results report that good worktime control buffered the association between work stress and medically certified sickness absence, especially among women. The paper discusses combining work and non-work demands as a possible benefit, but does not report a measured buffering effect on work-life balance or on stress itself. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Stansfeld SA, Bosma H, Hemingway H, et al. Psychosocial work characteristics and social support as predictors of SF-36 health functioning: the Whitehall II study. Psychosom Med 1998;60:247-55.
  2. Amick BC III, Kawachi I, Coakley EH, et al. Relationship of job strain and iso- strain to health status in a cohort of women in the United States. Scand J Work Environ Health 1998;24:54-61.
  3. Bosma H, Peter R, Siegrist J, et al. Two alternative job stress models and the risk of coronary heart disease. Am J Public Health 1998;88:68-74.
  4. Kuper H, Singh-Manoux A, Siegrist J, et al. When reciprocity fails: effort- reward imbalance in relation to coronary heart disease and health functioning within the Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med 2002;59:777-84.
  5. North F, Syme SL, Feeney A, et al. Psychosocial work environment and sickness absence among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study. Am J Public Health 1996;86:332-40.
  6. Niedhammer I, Bugel I, Goldberg M. Psychosocial factors at work and sickness absence in the Gazel cohort: a prospective study. Occup Environ Med 1998;55:735-41. Policy implication Providing employees with worktime control may promote health in strenuous work life.
  7. Vahtera J, Kivima ¨ki M, Pentti J, et al. Effect of change in the psychosocial work environment on sickness absence: a seven year follow up of initially healthy employees. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000;54:484-93.
  8. Johnson JV, Stewart W, Hall EM, et al. Long-term psychosocial work environment and cardiovascular mortality among Swedish men. Am J Public Health 1996;86:324-31.
  9. Amick BC III, McDonough P, Chang H, et al. Relationships between all-cause mortality and cumulative working life course psychosocial and physical exposures in the United States labor market from 1968 to 1992. Psychosom Med 2002;64:370-81.
  10. Kivima ¨ki M, Leino-Arjas P, Luukkonen R, et al. Work stress and risk of cardiovascular mortality: prospective cohort study of industrial employees. BMJ.com 2002;325:857.
  11. Ala-Mursula L, Vahtera J, Kivima ¨ki M, et al. Employee control over working times: associations with subjective health and sickness absences. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:272-8.
  12. Ala-Mursula L, Vahtera J, Pentti J, et al. Effect of employee worktime control on health: a prospective cohort study. Occup Environ Med 2004;61:254-61.
  13. Fenwick R, Tausig M. Scheduling Stress. Family and health outcomes of shift work and schedule control. American Behavioral Scientist 2001;44:1179-98.
  14. Hammar N, Alfredsson L, Theorell T. Job characteristics and the incidence of myocardial infarction. Int J Epidemiol 1994;23:277-84.
  15. Kivima ¨ki M, Head J, Ferrie JE, et al. Sickness absence as a global measure of health: evidence from all-cause mortality in the Whitehall II study. BMJ 2003;327:364-9.
  16. Vahtera J, Pentti J, Kivima ¨ki M. Sickness absence as a predictor of mortality among male and female employees. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:321-6.
  17. Kivima ¨ki M, Forma P, Wikstro ¨m J, et al. Sickness absence as a risk marker of future disability pension: the 10 town study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:710-11.
  18. Taris TW, Kalimo R, Schaufeli WB. Inequity at work: its measurement and association with worker health. Work Stress 2002;16:287-301.
  19. Kouvonen A, Kivima ¨ki M, Virtanen M, et al. Work stress, smoking status, and smoking intensity: an observational study of 46 190 employees J Epidemiol Community Health 2005;59:63-9.
  20. Virtanen M, Kivima ¨ki M, Elovainio M, et al. From insecure to secure employment: changes in work, health, health related behaviours, and sickness absence. Occup Environ Med 2003;60:948-53. 27 Statistics Finland. Classification of occupations, handbook number 14. Helsinki: Statistics Finland, 1997.
  21. Costa G, A ˚kerstedt T, Nachreiner F, et al. Flexible work hours, health and well being: results of the SALTSA project. Shiftwork International Newsletter 2003;20:55.
  22. Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, et al. The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:1483-99.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ala-Mursula, L., Vahtera, J., Linna, A., Pentti, J., & Kivimäki, M.
Affiliations
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FI)
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-09-15
Volume
59
Issue
10
Pages
851-857
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
OpenAlex
W1996359017
Cited by
187
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
20.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Academy of Finland
  • Työsuojelurahasto
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
Keywords
job strain, effort-reward imbalance, sick leave, occupational stress, public sector employees, sex differences, working hours, days off, occupational health
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Finland, Humans, Internal-External Control, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Diseases, Personnel Staffing and Scheduling, Prospective Studies, Sex Factors, Stress, Psychological, Work Schedule Tolerance, Occupational Health, Public Sector, Sick Leave, Personal Autonomy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review