1. A national survey of the psychosocial work environment in Denmark: A comparison of industries. T. S. Kristensen, V. Borg, H. Burr Psychosocial Department National Institute of Occupational Health Copenhagen, Denmark 27th International Congress on Occupational Health Iguassu Falls, Brazil L:\PSA01\8. PERSONLIGE ARKIVER\LNA\Forskere\Tage

2. A national survey of the psychosocial work environment in Denmark: A comparison of industries. T. S. Kristensen, V. Borg, H. Burr Psychosocial Department National Institute of Occupational Health Copenhagen, Denmark 27th International Congress on Occupational Health Iguassu Falls, Brazil L:\PSA01\8. PERSONLIGE ARKIVER\LNA\Forskere\Tage

3. Background: The national work environment policy The Danish government has decided that the psychosocial work environment should be improved with 5% by year 2005. The changes from 2000 to 2005 should be monitored by NIOH with national surveys.

4. 1.Influence 2.Meaning 3.Predictability 4.Social support 5.Rewards 6.Demands How to monitor the development of the psychosocial work environment? The Copenhagen Six Basic Dimensions of Stressors:

5. Survey: T he Danish Work Environment Cohort Study, 2000.  7.428 respondents  18-59 years of age  52% females  Response rate: 75%  Psychosocial questions from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ)

6. Influence Proportion with low influence over own working conditions: IndustryProportion Transportation of goods55% Cleaning & washing46% Building industry46% ALL, 18-59 YEARS28% Pharmaceutical industry19% Teaching & research13% Daycare, children11%

7. Meaning of work Proportion with a low level of meaning of work: IndustryProportion Slaughterhouses53% Cleaning & washing41% Hotels & restaurants38% ALL, 18-59 YEARS22% Automobiles, sales & service15% Daycare, children11% Hospitals11%

8. Predictability Proportion with low level of relevant information: IndustryProportion Slaughterhouses42% Printers & publishers41% Transportation of goods41% ALL, 18-59 YEARS29% Electronics23% Shops (retail)22% Daycare, children20%

9. Social support Proportion with low level of social support from supervisors and colleagues: IndustryProportion Cleaning & washing43% Slaughterhouses42% Transportation of goods40% ALL, 18-59 YEARS26% Pharmaceutical industry19% Daycare, children19% Military & police17%

10. Rewards Proportion with low levels of recognition and esteem: IndustryProportion Slaughterhouses51% Wood & furniture industry41% Transportation of goods33% ALL, 18-59 YEARS23% Doctors & dentists14% Insulation & installation11% Pharmaceutical industry 8%

11. Demands Proportion with high work pace: IndustryProportion Hotels & restaurants64% Slaughterhouses58% Hospitals51% ALL, 18-59 YEARS37% Pharmaceutical industry27% Automobiles, sales & service25% Daycare, children17%

12. Overall picture Number of ”top 5” and ”bottom 5” positions: Influ- enceMeaning Predic- tability Social supportRewardsDemands The worst: Slaughterhouses ----- Cleaning & washing ----- Transportation, passengers ----- The best: Daycare, children +++++ Pharmaceutcal industry +++++

13. Perpectives Special initiatives will be taken with regard to ”problem industries”:  Slaugterhouses  Transportation of passengers (e.g. bus drivers)  Cleaning & washing (e.g. cleaners)

14. Conclusions  The survey has pinpointed a number of psychosocial risk factors.  A few high risk industries have been identified.  Focused initiatives will be possible during 2000-2005.  The survey will be repeated in 2005 and changes will be evaluated.

15. This presentation can be seen on: www.ami.dk/presentations The End