Search

Background: With the aging of populations in many countries, workers are expected to remain employed longer but may struggle with the onset of common, chronic conditions like arthritis. To date, few studies have examined workplace policies and practices that could help accommodate individuals with arthritis, and fewer still have used a sex and gender-based approach to explore similarities and differences between women and men. Objectives: This study compared the health and work contexts of workers aged ≥50 years to better understand similarities and differences between women and men in accommodation availability, need, use, and unmet needs. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of men and women with osteoarthritis (OA), inflammatory arthritis (IA), or both OA and IA was administered online or by telephone and assessed demographics (e.g. age, education), health (e.g. pain, fatigue, workplace activity limitations), work context factors (e.g. job sector, full/part-time work, job control), and workplace accommodations (e.g. health bene- fits, flexible hours, special equipment/adaptations, modified duties). Sex and gender-based analyses examined similarities and differences between men and women and included descriptive statistics, multivariable multinomial analyses, and nested regression analyses. Results: There was a 58.9% response rate and final sample of 463 participants (women, n = 266; men, n = 197; OA = 59.0%; IA/both IA and OA = 23.7%; unsure = 17.3%). Women and men were significantly different in a number of health (e.g. fatigue, health variability, workplace activity limitations) and work context factors (e.g. job sector, part-time work, job stress). However, in other respects, they were similar (e.g. pain, job involving physical demands, size of organization, shift work, union membership, job control). There were no differences between men and women in the availability or use of workplace accommodations. However, women reported significantly more accommodation needs and had greater unmet needs. Multivariable multinomial analyses found male/female as a binary variable did not explain differences in accommodation need, use, and unmet need. Nested analyses highlighted that differences in health variables explained male/female differences in accommodation need, while work context differences explained male/female differences in whether needs were met. Conclusions: The findings highlight that women and men draw on a range of existing accommodation policies and practices to help manage their arthritis and that most have their accommodation needs met. Decomposing the context within which men and women with arthritis work suggests that women may face health and work context challenges that differ from men and that are related to greater accommodation needs and unmet need. This highlights potential vulnerabilities in the work of women that need to be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores whether instruments used to measure Job Control and Psychological Job Demands function differently by sex. We evaluated the comparability of these measures by sex using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis. All estimates were invariant by sex, except for the intercept for the item assessing how "hectic" a worker perceives his/her job (which contributes to the Demands measure). This item intercept was statistically significantly higher for women than men, but not practically so. These findings suggest that the differences observed between men and women in the impact of work stress on health cannot be explained by measurement bias (when using the work stress measures employed in this study). Further research is needed to understand why work stress appears to affect the health of men and women differently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Stress is an important factor affecting the health of working population. While work exposures are determinants of levels of work and life stress, we do not know whether similar or different exposures are related to stress levels for men and women. This study aimed to formally examine male/female differences in the relationships between psychosocial work exposures and work and life stress in a representative sample of Canadian labour market participants. Methods: We used data from 2012 cycle of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), a representative population-based survey conducted by Statistics Canada. The sample was restricted to employed labour force participants working 15+ hours per week (N = 8328, 48% female). To examine the relationship between work exposures and work and life stress, we conducted path analyses. Psychosocial work exposures included social support, job insecurity, job control, and job strain. Differences between estimates for men and women were explored using multigroup analyses, constraining paths between male and female models to be equivalent and examining the impact on change in model fit. Results: Male/female differences were observed in the relationships between supervisor support and work stress levels as well as between job control, job insecurity, job strain, and life stress levels. Higher levels of supervisor support at work were associated with lower work stress among women, but not among men. Low job control had a direct protective effect on life stress for men but not for women, while high job strain had a direct adverse effect on life stress among women but not among men. Higher job insecurity was more strongly associated with higher life stress among men compared with women. The relationship between work stress and life stress was similar among men and women. Discussion: The findings of this study suggest that the relationships between psychosocial exposures and work and life stress differ for men and women. Our study also raised important questions about which work exposures are considered when assessing work stress, with level of job control not related to work stress but associated with levels of life stress among men. Conclusion: Our study highlights the role of psychosocial work environment for both work and life stress and suggests differences in the importance of specific psychosocial work dimensions for feelings of stress among men and women, and for work stress versus life stress. Future study designs should ensure that measures are included to better disentangle the relative contribution of social and biological factors in explaining these differences among men and women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]