ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Having initially reported on the overall level of stress in Her Majesty's Coastguard (HMCG), in a second study we found that a combined (negative) effects approach to stress was better able to identify the associated psychosocial risk factors than by using the well-documented Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) or Job Demand-Control Support (JDCS) models alone. Using the same combined effects method, this study now examines the negative health and wellbeing outcomes associated with the level of high stress found in this occupational group. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants included 282 coastguards. A range of known stress outcomes were measured including: mental and physical health, accidents, risk taking, effects of memory, lifestyle, and job satisfaction. RESULTS: Significant associations were found with: anxiety, depression, number of sick days, perception that illness was caused or made worse by work, number of symptoms, medicines taken, insomnia, ability to maintain a desired body weight or take planned exercise and find time to relax and wind down, time spent on hobbies or interests, the impact of job on family life/family life on job, and job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Sixteen negative outcomes were significantly associated with the combined effects approach, compared with 15 using ERI or 10 using JDCS alone. Results clearly demonstrated the harmful effects of stress in maritime related roles, other than those of seafarers and suggest that further research in this area would be useful. Further studies on the more flexible stress model, which allows for the examination of both established and new combinations of risk factors and associated outcomes, would also be beneficial.
Subject(s)
Adaptation, Psychological , Occupational Exposure , Occupational Health , Ships , Stress, Psychological/complications , Adult , Analysis of Variance , Confidence Intervals , Female , Humans , Job Satisfaction , Male , Models, Psychological , Psychometrics , Risk Factors , Statistics as Topic , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND. As a previously unresearched occupational group, the overall aim of this research was to establish the prevalence of stress and associated outcomes in Her Majesty's Coastguard (HMCG). MATERIAL AND METHODS. Data were collected from 282 coastguards by paper questionnaire and compared with general UK working population data from the Bristol Stress and Health at Work Study (SHAW) and the Psychosocial Working Conditions Survey (PWC), 2009. RESULTS. The level of high stress reported in HMCG (11%) was significantly lower than the comparison data (17%). The level of depression found was significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS. HMCG had lower levels of stress than the general UK working population, due, in part to high levels of social support. Data suggests HMCG worthy of study for both negative effects of stress and stress reduction elsewhere.
Subject(s)
Health Status , Military Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Health/statistics & numerical data , Ships , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Adult , Comorbidity , Humans , Job Satisfaction , Male , Occupational Diseases/diagnosis , Stress, Psychological/diagnosis , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To determine the extent to which work-related stress in Her Majesty's Coastguard (HMCG) could be accounted for by the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) and Job Demand-Control- -Support (JDCS) stress models. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants included a total of 282 coastguards. Data on risk factors were collected via questionnaire, within the wider context of the UK HSE Management Standards framework for stress reduction. Analyses included an examination of each model and its association with stress and mental health outcomes, as well as their impact in combination with the range of other risk factors measured. RESULTS: Significant predictors of stress included ERI, organisation change, and exposure to physical agents (noise). Anxiety was predicted by ERI, noise, and bullying, and depression by ERI, bullying, noise, training, and role conflict/ambiguity. CONCLUSIONS: For this occupational group, the main source of high stress, anxiety, and depression was ERI. These results raise implications for the use and interpretation of data when using these models, as well as for HSE Management Standards, which are biased towards JDCS. Results from this and other studies also suggest further research is required into the benefits of a more flexible model or framework, which can examine both established and new combinations of risk factors.
