CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 193Workplace Health and Well-beingEmployment and Welfare StudiesOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

Employee control over working times: associations with subjective health and sickness absences

Open access
Ala-Mursula, L, Vahtera, J, Kivimäki, M, Kevin, M V, Pentti, J·2002·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
DOI 10.1136/jech.56.4.272PMC PMC1732125
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Study objective: To investigate the impact of employees' worktime control on health, taking into account other aspects of job control. Design: Analysis of questionnaire data in 1997 and register data on sickness absence during 1996–1998. Setting: Eight towns in Finland. Participants: 6442 municipal employees (1490 men and 4952 women) representing the staff of the towns studied. Follow up was 17 706 person years. Main results: In women, poor health and psychological distress were more prevalent among those in the lowest quartile of worktime control than those in the highest (after adjustment for potential confounders including other aspects of job control, odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals for poor health and psychological distress were 1.8 (1.5 to 2.3) and 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0), respectively). Correspondingly, the adjusted sickness absence rate was 1.2 (1.1 to 1.2) times higher in women with low worktime control than in women with high worktime control. In men, no significant associations between worktime control and health were found. These results, obtained from the total sample, were replicable within a homogeneous occupational group comprising women and men. Conclusions: Exploration of specific aspects of job control provides new information about potentially reversible causes of health problems in a working population. Worktime control is an independent predictor of health in women but not in men. Dissimilarities in the distribution of occupations between men and women are not a probable explanation for this difference.

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.56.4.272

Cites

3 of 3 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 [34]

    The Worktime control and health section reports an association between higher worktime control and fewer sickness absences, particularly among women, as well as less psychological distress among women. The Worktime control as a control dimension section suggests that control may help integrate work and private life, but does not report a measured work–life balance outcome. The paper does not establish a buffering effect on stress or the other outcomes. (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: 37

  1. Karasek R, Baker D, Marxer F, et al. Job decision latitude, job demands, and cardiovascular disease: a prospective study of Swedish men. Am J Public Health 1981;71:694-705.
  2. Marmot MG, Bosma H, Hemingway H, et al. Contribution of job control and other risk factors to social variations in coronary heart disease incidence. Lancet 1997;350:235-9.
  3. Bobak M, Hertzman C, Skodova Z, et al. Association between psychosocial factors at work and nonfatal myocardial infarction in a population-based case-control study in Czech men. Epidemiology 1998;9:43-7.
  4. 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.
  5. Theorell T, Tsutsumi A, Hallquist J, et al. Decision latitude, job strain, and myocardial infarction: A study of working men in Stockholm. Am J Public Health 1998;88:382-8.
  6. 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.
  7. North F, Syme SL, Feeney A, et al. Explaining socioeconomic differences in sickness absence: the Whitehall II study. BMJ 1993;306:361-6.
  8. Melamed S, Ben-Avi I, Luz J, et al. Objective and subjective work monotony: effects on job satisfaction, psychological distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar workers. J Appl Psychol 1995;80:29-42.
  9. 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.
  10. Kivimäki M, Vahtera J, Thomson J, et al. Psychosocial factors predicting employee sickness absence during economic decline. J Appl Psychol 1997;82:858-72.
  11. Lerner DJ, Levine S, Malspeis S, et al. Job strain and health-related quality of life in a national sample. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1580-5.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Cheng Y, Kawachi I, Coakley EH, et al. Association between psychosocial work characteristics and health functioning in American women: prospective study. BMJ 2000;320:1432-6.
  15. Aronsson G. Dimensions of control as related to work organization, stress, and health. Int J Health Serv 1989;19:459-68.
  16. Frese M. Theoretical models of control and health. In: Sauter SL, Hurrell JA, Cooper CL, eds. Job control and worker health. Chichester: Wiley, 1989:107-28.
  17. Frankenhaeuser M. Coping with stress at work. Int J Health Serv 1981;11:491-510.
  18. Alfredsson L, Karasek R, Theorell T. Myocardial infarction risk and psychosocial work environment: an analysis of the male Swedish working force. Soc Sci Med 1982;16:463-46.
  19. Kivimäki M, Vahtera J, Pentti J. Factors underlying the effect of organizational downsizing on health of employees: longitudinal cohort study. BMJ 2000;320:971-5.
  20. Vahtera J, Kivimäki 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.
  21. Spector PE. Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations 1986;39:1005-16.
  22. Steptoe A, Fieldman G, Evans O, et al. Control over work pace, job strain and cardiovascular responses in middle-aged men. J Hypertens 1993;11:751-9.
  23. Jackson SE. Participation in decision making as a strategy for reducing job-related strain. J Appl Psychol 1983;68:3-19.
  24. Alfredsson L, Spetz C-L, Theorell T. Type of occupation and near-future hospitalization for myocardial infarction and some other diagnoses. Int J Epidemiol 1985;14:378-88.
  25. Hammar N, Alfredsson L, Theorell T. Job characteristics and the incidence of myocardial infarction. Int J Epidemiol 1994;23:277-84.
  26. Vahtera J, Kivimäki M, Pentti J. Effect of organizational downsizing on health of employees. Lancet 1997;350:1124-8.
  27. Ganster DC. Worker control and well-being: a review of research in the workplace. In: Sauter SL, Hurrell JA, Cooper CL, eds. Job control and worker health. Chichester: Wiley, 1989:3-23.
  28. Kaplan GA, Goldberg DE, Everson SA, et al. Perceived health status and morbidity and mortality: evidence from the Kuopio ischemic heart disease risk factor study. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:259-65.
  29. Miilunpalo S, Vuori I, Oja P, et al. Self-rated health status as a health measure: the predictive value of self-reported health status on the use of physician services and on mortality in the working-age population. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:517-28.
  30. Kaprio J, Koskenvuo M, Langinvainio H, et al. Genetic influences on use and abuse of alcohol: a study of 5638 adult Finnish twin brothers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1987;11:349-56.
  31. Rimm EB, Williams P, Fosher K, et al. Moderate alcohol intake and lower risk of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of effects on lipids and haemostatic factors. BMJ 1999;319:1523-8.
  32. Sargent LS, Terry DJ. The effects of work control and job demands on employee adjustment and work performance. J Occup Organ Psychol 1998;71:219-36.
  33. Lundberg U, Mårdberg B, Frankenhaeuser M. The total workload of male and female white collar workers as related to age, occupational level, and number of children. Scand J Psychol 1994;35:315-27.
  34. Frankenhaeuser M. The psychophysiology of sex differences as related to occupational status. In: Frankenhaeuser M, Lundberg U, Chesney M, eds: Women, work and health: stress and opportunities. New York: Plenum Press, 1991:39-61.
  35. Lundberg U, Frankenhaeuser M. Stress and workload of men and women in high-ranking positions. J Occup Health Psychol 1999;4:142-51.
  36. Matthews S, Hertzman C, Ostry A, et al. Gender, work roles and psychosocial work characteristics as determinants of health. Soc Sci Med 1998;46:1417-24.
  37. Marmot MG, Feeney A, Shipley M, et al. Sickness absence as a measure of health status and functioning: from the UK Whitehall II study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49:124-30.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ala-Mursula, L., Vahtera, J., Kivimäki, M., Kevin, M. V., & Pentti, J.
Affiliations
  • Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FI)
  • University of Turku (FI)
ORCID
Vahtera, J
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-04
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
272-278
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
DOI
10.1136/jech.56.4.272
PMC
PMC1732125
OpenAlex
W2030567158
Cited by
193
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
FWCI
17.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Academy of Finland
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
job control, self-rated health, sick leave, psychological distress, sex differences, municipal employees, occupational health, working hours
MeSH terms
Absenteeism, Adult, Decision Making, Female, Finland, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Stress, Psychological, Time Factors, Work Schedule Tolerance, Logistic Models, Occupational Health, Sick Leave

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