Background
Occupational injuries, which can result in
absenteeism, disability, or
death, are closely related to poor
working conditions. However, the improvement of operating conditions are often
time-consuming and require significant economic inputs. Both occupational
psychology and enterprise
risk factors have been proved to be related to the occurrence of
occupational injuries, but their
roles in the influence path of adverse
working conditions leading to
occupational injuries remain unclear. Objective To explore the
roles of occupational
psychology and enterprise
risk factors in the impact of adverse
working conditions on
occupational injury, so as to provide a scientific basis for enterprises with adverse
working conditions to carry out targeted
occupational injury intervention programs.
Methods The
survey data of 5997 manufacturing enterprises were obtained from the European
Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging
Risks (ESENER) database. The data on enterprise
risk characteristics,
occupational injuries,
working conditions, and occupational
psychological factors were extracted and assigned.
Occupational injury differences by enterprise categories were examined by
chi-square test. Correlations between interest variables were evaluated by Spearman test. Path
analysis with Bootstrap
method was conducted using AMOS 26
software, and ratio of chi-square
statistic to degree of
freedom (χ2/ν), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to evaluate the path model candidates. The effect size and its proportion were calculated for variables (occupational
psychological factors, enterprise
risk factors, and adverse
working conditions) included in the final model. Results The M (P25, P75) scores of
occupational injuries, adverse
working conditions, and occupational
psychological factors were 40 (20, 50), 50 (30, 60), and 20 (10, 30), respectively. The enterprises that reported
occupational injuries accounted for 25.5% (1550 enterprises) of the total enterprises. Proportions of the enterprises that reported
occupational injuries varied significantly by company scale, branch companies, temporary
employment,
language barriers, and establishment
time (P<0.05). The results of Spearman test showed that
occupational injuries were positively correlated with
working conditions (rs=0.440), occupational
psychological factors (rs=0.205), company scale (rs=0.307), temporary
employment (rs=0.282), and
language barriers (rs=0.158); but negatively correlated with branch companies (rs=−0.180) and establishment
time (rs=−0.176) (P<0.05). In the path
analysis, the fitness indexes of the final model were χ2/ν=2.85, CFI=0.997, TLI=0.993, and RMSEA=0.018 (90%CI 0.011, 0.025). The indirect effect size values and constituent ratios of enterprise
risk factors and occupational
psychological factors in the effect of adverse
working conditions on
occupational injuries were 0.166 (30.01%) and 0.013 (3.13%) respectively. The indirect effect size value of occupational
psychological factors in the effect of enterprise
risk factors on
occupational injuries and its constituent ratio were 0.022 and 6.85%. Conclusion Enterprises with adverse
working conditions may control the
risk of
occupational injuries by offering better
solutions to surmount
language barriers and temporary
employment, developing occupational
psychological intervention and
optimization programs such as improving working hours system. At the same
time, large enterprises, enterprises without branches, or enterprises with a long
history are the focus of
occupational injury prevention and control.