Cited by 4Occupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesOccupational Health and BurnoutWorkplace Health and Well-being

Quality of life, lifestyle, and working environment of women in the footwear industry

Open access
Rios, Lilian, Paggiaro, André Oliveira, Fernandes, Rosa Aurea Quintella·2020·Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Trabalho

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The footwear industry uses glue and other organic solvents (such as ethyl acetate, acetone, xylene, and toluene) in its manufacturing process; these substances, when associated with an inadequate working environment, can potentialize health problems and interfere with the perception of quality of life by female workers. OBJECTIVES: To verify the quality of life of women working in the footwear industry and its association with the self-reported morbidities of these workers, their working environment, and lifestyle habits. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study, with a quantitative approach, developed with 120 women shoemakers in the city of Franca, state of São Paulo. For evaluating quality of life, we used the abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument. RESULTS: The most common self-reported morbidities were anxiety (65%), stress (62.5%), irritability (49.2%), sleep alterations (35.8%), fatigue (30%), and muscle cramps (30%). The physical domain presented the highest mean score (68.0), followed by the psychological (67.1) and social relationships domains (66.4). Environment was the domain with the lowest mean score (53.5). Quality of life was associated with the following self-reported morbidities: muscle cramps (p = 0.010), breathing difficulty (p = 0.029), tingling in the upper limbs (p = 0.010), decline in manual skills and work capacity, and pain (p < 0.001); the physical domain was the most affected. We observed a statistically significant difference in mean physical domain scores (p = 0.006) of women who used personal protection equipment; noise in the workplace interfered with the social relationships domain (p = 0.019), while working position interfered with the social relationships (p = 0.021) and environment (0 = 0.047) domains. CONCLUSIONS: The self-reported morbidities reported here and some working conditions negatively interfered with the women's quality of life.

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 · 10.47626/1679-4435-2020-517

Cites

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?

  • A deficient work environment adversely influences general well-being and work aptitude, increasing the risk of accidents and diseases.

    “Los estudios señalan que un entorno de trabajo deficiente influir de manera adversa en el bienestar general y en la aptitud de trabajo, incrementando el riesgo de accidentes y enfermedades [3], [19].”

    From Impact of ergonomics on work performance in the manufacturing industry: A systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Conclusions state that the work environment negatively affected the footwear workers’ quality of life, and the Discussion links unsafe environments to low productivity and chronic disease. The paper also reports reduced work capacity, but does not establish that a deficient work environment caused it. Its Discussion associates a possible increase in accidents with prolonged combined work and household workloads, rather than with the work environment specifically. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Environmental factors such as temperature, noise, and lighting conditions are determinants in fatigue and stress scales.

    “Factores como la temperatura, el ruido y las condiciones lumínicas son considerados determinantes en las escalas de fatiga y estrés [18], [19], [20], [21].”

    From Impact of ergonomics on work performance in the manufacturing industry: A systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Results (Tables 1 and 4; page unavailable) list fatigue and stress as self-reported morbidities and examine workplace noise against quality-of-life domains, not fatigue or stress scales. Searches for temperature, lighting, and environmental determinants of fatigue or stress found no passage establishing the claimed relationship. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. [3]Prazeres TJ Navarro VL Shoes stitched, workers unstitched: a study on working and health conditions among women factory workers in the footwear industry in Franca, São Paulo State, Brazil Cad Saúde Pública 2011 27 10 1930 1938 22031197
  2. [4]Azari MR Hosseini V Jafari MJ Soori H Asadi P Mousavion SMA Evaluation of occupational exposure of shoe makers to benzene and toluene compounds in shoe manufacturing workshops in East Tehran Tanaffos 2012 11 4 43 49 25191437 PMC4153221
  3. [5]Koch P Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from epoxy resin systems and possibly acetone in a shoemaker Contact Dermatitis 2002 46 6 362 363 12190631
  4. [6]Speed G Harris K Keegel T The effect of cushioning materials on musculoskeletal discomfort and fatigue during prolonged standing at work: A systematic review 2018 70 300 314 29866322
  5. [7]Elci OC Yener G Uchu R Working conditions and related neuropsychiatric problems among shoemakers in Turkey: Do child workers differ from others? Indian J Occup Environ Med 2007 11 1 9 14 21957366 PMC3168113
  6. [8]The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization Soc Sci Med 1995 41 10 1403 1409 8560308
  7. [9]Dianat I Kord M Yahyazade P Karimi MA Stedmon AW Association of individual and work-related risk factors with musculoskeletal symptoms among Iranian sewing machine operators Appl Ergon 2015 51 180 188 26154216
  8. [10]Isahak M Loh MY Susilowati IH Kaewboonchoo O Harncharoen K Mohd Amin NM The association of workplace exposures on quality of life in small and medium enterprises workers: a cross-sectional study in four ASEAN countries Asia Pac J Public Health 2017 29 4 315 327 28569111
  9. [11]Wong CKH Fung CSC Siu SC Wong KW Lee KF Lo YYC The impact of work nature, lifestyle, and obesity on health-related quality of life in Chinese professional drivers J Occup Environ Med 2012 54 8 989 994 22772952
  10. [13]Santana LL Miranda FMDA Karino ME Baptista PCP Felli VEA Sarquis LMM Description of workloads and fatigue experienced among health workers in a teaching hospital Rev Gaucha Enferm 2013 34 1 64 70 23781725
  11. [14]van der Heijden BIJM Demerouti E Bakker AB NEXT Study Group coordinated by Hans-Martin Hasselhorn Work-home interference among nurses: reciprocal relationships with job demands and health J Adv Nurs 2008 62 5 572 584 18489450
  12. [15]Schuch FB Vasconcelos-Moreno MP Fleck MPA The impact of exercise on Quality of Life within exercise and depression trials: a systematic review Ment Health Phys Act 2011 4 2 43 48
  13. [16]Zronek M Sanker H Newcomb J Donaldson M The influence of home exercise programs for patients with non-specific or specific neck pain: a systematic review of the literature J Man Manip Ther 2016 24 2 62 73 27559275 PMC4984813
  14. [17]Jinnett K Schwatka N Tenney L Brockbank CVS Newman LS Chronic conditions, workplace safety, and job demands contribute to absenteeism and job performance Health Aff (Millwood) 2017 36 2 237 244 28167711
  15. [18]Miranda H Kaila-Kangas L Heliövaara M Leino-Arjas P Haukka E Liira J Musculoskeletal pain at multiple sites and its effects on work ability in a general working population Occup Environ Med 2010 67 7 449 455 19889646
  16. [21]Costa CSN Freitas EG Mendonça LCS Alem MER Coury HJCG Work ability and quality of life of Brazilian industrial workers Ciênc Saúde Coletiva 2012 17 6 1635 1642 22699653
  17. [22]Pan HJ Cole BM Geliebter A The benefits of body weight loss on health-related quality of life J Chin Med Assoc 2011 74 4 169 175 21463847 PMC3835351
  18. [24]Ramos EL Souza NVDO Gonçalves FGA Pires AS Santos DM Quality of work life: repercussions for the health of nursing worker in intensive care Rev Pesq: Cuid Fundam 2014 6 2 571 583 10.9789/2175-5361.2014.v6i2.571-83 · DOI
  19. [25]Ansoleaga E Diaz X Mauro A Associação entre estresse, riscos psicossociais e qualidade do emprego de trabalhadores assalariados chilenos: uma perspectiva de gênero Cad Saúde Pública 2016 32 7 e00176814 27462856

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rios, L., Paggiaro, A. O., & Fernandes, R. A. Q.
Affiliations
Guarulhos University (BR)
Venue
Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Trabalho
Published
2020
Volume
18
Issue
04
Pages
390-398
ISSN
  • 1679-4435 (ISSN-L)
  • 2447-0147
OpenAlex
W3121288479
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Trabalho (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Burnout
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
quality of life, footwear industry, women's employment, shoemakers, occupational health, work environment, lifestyle habits, self-reported morbidity, stress and anxiety, organic solvents, adhesives, personal protective equipment, workplace noise, work posture, muscle cramps, WHOQOL-BREF

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