The fifth Danish Work Environment Cohort Study, carried out in 2010 by the National Research Centre for the Working Environment, revealed both improvements and a decline in conditions for Danish workers. Compared with 2005, there was a significant increase in the number of people experiencing emotional demands and an increase in those reporting being exposed to bullying, violence and threats of violence. However, social support from colleagues and superiors increased. There was a decrease in the number of people exposed to traditional physical demands such as heavy lifting, but an increase in exposure to loud noise, body vibration and solvents.
Download report [pdf, size 136 kb]
About the study
Every five years the working conditions, health and lifestyle of Danish workers are assessed through the official national working conditions survey, Danish Work Environment Cohort Study, conducted by the National Research Centre for the Working Environment (NFA).
The Danish Work Environment Cohort Study 2010 (in Danish) is a continuation of the Danish Employee Study (WEC) conducted every five years since 1990. The name changed following the inclusion of self-employed and unemployed workers in the 2000, 2005 and 2010 surveys in order to cover the entire labour market.
The key findings from the NFA analysis presented below cover only those respondents in employment (employed or self-employed). In 2010, this constituted around 10,600 out of the 14,453 who participated in the survey.
Methodology
The survey sample is representative of the total national population aged 18–59 years and covers employees, self-employed and unemployed people.
The survey is self-reported and has a split panel design, that is, respondents to the survey in one year are approached again in future years with new respondents added to maintain a survey population representative of the total working population. Table 1 gives details of the respondent groups in 2010, that is, those ‘pulled out’ from the population to form a representative sample. Table 2 provides technical details about the 2010 survey. Information about the methodology is given in NFA (2010a).
Table 1: Source of respondents to 2010 surveySample population | Number in group | Age on 1 October 2010 | Other criteria for sample | Information in sample |
|---|
| Existing 2005-cohort | 19,855 | Sample latest in September 2005 | Sample latest in September 2005 | Social security number, municipality of residence, name, address, labour market status |
|---|
| New sample 2010: young people | Up to 2,000 | 18–22 | – | Social security number, municipality of residence, name, address |
|---|
| New sample 2010: adults | ~14,000 | 18–59 | – | Social security number, municipality of residence, name, address |
|---|
| New sample immigrants | Up to 300 | 23–59 | Not resident in Denmark on 1 October 2005 but resident in Denmark at the time of sample. | Social security number, municipality of residence, name, address |
|---|
Source: NFA (2010a)
Table 2: Technical details about 2010 surveySurvey name | Danish Work Environment Cohort Study 2010 |
|---|
| Coverage | Total national labour market regardless of labour market status of respondent, though the final analysis covers only people in employment. |
|---|
| Frequency | Every five years since 1990. The 2010 edition is the fifth survey. |
|---|
| Survey population (respondents) | 1990: 8,664 individuals; 1995: 8,583 individuals; 2000: 8,583 individuals; 2005: 15,228 individuals, 2010: 14,453 individuals. |
|---|
| Sampling strategy | Split panel design: stratified simple random samplings with proportional allocation. |
|---|
| Registers used for sample | Initially, a representative random sample taken from the Central Population Register (CPR) of 30,000 people aged 18–59 years and subsequently registers complied by Statistics Denmark (Danmarks Statistik). |
|---|
| Strategy for data collection | Postal or online questionnaires. Data collection for previous surveys consisted of both questionnaires and interviews. |
|---|
| Contact point | National Research Centre for the Working Environment (NFA)* |
|---|
| Public access to data | Survey website (in Danish) |
|---|
Note: *Former National Institute of Occupational Health – name changed on 1 January 2007.
Source: NFA (2010a)
Questionnaire
The questionnaire for 2010 consisted of 62 main questions about participants’ perceptions of their work environment and health. The questions covered:
- background of the respondents in terms of sex, age, labour market status, job and sector;
- working time, work organisation, workload, work pace and health promotion at the workplace;
- physical work environment such as noise, vibration, wet work, security and accidents, physical demands, work posture, and exposure to chemical and thermal risks;
- psychosocial work environment such as emotional demands, skill discretion, decision latitude, bullying, violence, support from employer and colleagues, and work-life balance;
- lifestyle and habits, health and disease symptoms including self-rated health and doctors’ diagnoses (if any), work ability, sickness absence and planned time of retirement.
Comparison with previous surveys
When comparing the results from 2010 with those from previous surveys, it is important to be aware of the change in the method of data collection for 2010. In 2005 both questionnaires and interviews were used, whereas only questionnaires were used in 2010. The figures from the corresponding survey data report on the 2005 survey (DK0701019D) are therefore different to the 2005 figures used in this survey data report as, to allow comparison with the 2010 survey, the 2010 NFA analysis only took account of the questionnaire results from 2005.
In addition, changes to some of the questions in the questionnaire between 2005 and 2010 mean it is not possible to compare the 2010 results with all areas of the 2005 study.
NFA made an independent analysis to determine whether the reported changes in working conditions between 2005 and 2010 were affected by differences in the distribution of the Danish workforce. The analysis showed that changes in the workforce composition have had only a limited impact on the observed changes in the work environment between 2005 and 2010. Therefore the unadjusted results were used in all the subject-specific and descriptive analysis.
Trends in working conditions, 2005–2010
As with the previous study covering the period 2000–2005, no clear trend towards an overall better or worse work environment can be identified in the study covering the period 2005–2010. The 2010 study indicates both poorer and improved working conditions varying with the specific areas of the research, as presented below.
Traditional risk factors
There was no overall trend towards poorer or improved working conditions in exposure to traditional risk factors (physical, chemical and ergonomic) (Figure 1). From 2005 to 2010 there was a significant decrease in physical demands such as heavy lifting, pull and push moves, back twisting and bending. However, there was a significant increase in noise (both disturbing and very loud) as well as body vibration. There was also an increase in workers reporting skin contact with cleaning agents and disinfectants, wet hands, repeated arm and/or finger movements as well as a minor increase in sedentary work.
Psychosocial work factors
As was the case for the physical work factors, the results for the psychosocial work factors reveal both signs of worsening and improvement in the working environment between 2005 and 2010 (Figure 2). On the positive side, there was a significantly increase in social support from both colleagues and superiors. On the more negative side, there was a significant increase in workers experiencing bullying, violence or threats of violence.
There was also an increase in emotional demands similar to the development identified in the 2005 study. In addition, there was a significant decrease in people experiencing meaning in their job. In terms of minor changes, slightly fewer workers experienced reward, predictability and decision latitude, while no significant development occurred in regard to skill discretion.
Working hours and workload
Fewer workers reported feeling that they had to work rapidly and the average working hours per week fell compared to 2005 by 1.6 hours per week (Figure 3). There was no significant development in the level of workloads between 2005 and 2010. Unfortunately the 2010 results do not include work–life balance as an independent factor as was the case for the 2005 results.
Job-related differences
The 2010 study revealed considerable divergence in the working conditions within different types of jobs.
Background information on job classification
The job information is based on the so called DISCO-88 code (in Danish), which is the official Danish version of the International Standard Classification of Occupation ISCO-88 from the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Despite some adjustment to Danish conditions the Danish version is very similar to ISCO-88.
In its descriptive analysis, NFA aggregated data so that groups with fewer than 30 people are merged if they have a common level of educational attainment or partially common designation. Some groups are not included in the job types used in the 2010 study if too many problems were caused by merging them on the basis of classification of occupations. These individuals are therefore not included in any analysis where job information is used.
Risks associated with different types of jobs
Psychosocial factors
Nearly all the job types that experienced high emotional demands, bullying and violence involved working with people (Table 3). This is especially the case within health care, welfare and education. However, executives and academics from the social sciences and humanities also experienced high emotional demands although they do not work in occupations typically referred to as ‘people-related’.
Those workers experiencing ‘low skill discretion’ and ‘low decision latitude’ are primarily people with in jobs such as service, industry or construction requiring little or a low level of qualifications. Workers experiencing ‘high decision latitude’ and skill discretion are primarily self-employed, executives and people working in jobs requiring a higher level of qualification. The latter job types are furthermore overrepresented in the group with long working weeks.
Table 3: Psychosocial risk factors by type of job, 2010Risk | Job types* |
|---|
High emotional demands | Social workers; teachers and care workers for disabled; school teachers; nurses; physiotherapy and occupational therapists; doctors and dentists; teachers and teacher assistants; home care and nursing assistants; police and prison staff; high school teachers; child minders; academics – social sciences and humanities; managers. |
Low skill discretion | Slaughterhouse workers; postal workers; cleaners; office assistants and telephone operators; storage and dock workers, sales assistants; metal workers, unskilled workers in industry; calculators, production planners and shippers, etc.; serving staff; food and beverage workers; masons and other construction workers; general office work; chefs and kitchen assistants. |
Low decision latitude | Slaughterhouse workers; storage and dock workers; postal workers; home care and nursing assistants; sales assistants; metal workers; unskilled workers industry; serving staff; office assistants and telephone operators; military and civil defence personnel; police and prison staff; mechanics; mechanical engineering and metal fitters industry; cleaners; carpenters and joiners construction; nurses; masons and other construction workers, general office work. |
Exposed to bullying | Home care; nursing assistants; teachers; teacher assistants; cleaners |
Exposed to violence | Police and prison staff; education and care workers for disabled; teachers and teacher assistants; home care; nursing assistants; school teachers; child minders; nurses |
Long working week (more than 39 hours) | Self-employed; university researchers; managers; doctors and dentists; engineers and architects; academics – science; academics – social sciences and humanities; IT staff; calculators; production planners; shippers |
Note: *Jobs types that differ statistically significantly from the national average in relation to a certain risk factor.
Source: NFA (2010c)
Physical risk factors
Workers with material and physical activity in their jobs were more exposed to traditional risk factors such as heavy lifting and back bending; they also represented a group experiencing ‘lower skill discretion’ and ‘decision latitude’ (Table 4). This pattern was also identified in the 2005 study. There was furthermore a connection between low physical activity, ‘high skill discretion’, ‘high decision latitude’ and long working weeks.
Table 4: Physical risk factors by type of job, 2010Risk | Job types* |
|---|
Heavy lifting (>10 kg) | Plumbers construction; carpenters and joiners construction; agricultural, horticultural and forestry workers; masons and other construction workers; metal workers, unskilled workers industry; child minders; slaughterhouse workers; food and beverage workers; mechanics, mechanical engineering and metal fitters industry; caretakers; storage and dock workers; skilled machinists industry; postmen; teachers and teacher assistants; home care and nursing assistants; self-employed. |
|---|
Back twist and bending | Carpenters and joiners construction; cleaners; slaughterhouse workers; plumbers construction; masons and other construction workers; agricultural, horticultural and forestry workers; home care and nursing assistants; metal workers, unskilled workers industry; postmen; mechanics, mechanical engineering and metal fitters industry; chefs and kitchen assistants; storage and dock workers; child minders; sales assistants; serving staff; food and beverage workers; electricians, skilled machinists industry; teachers and teacher assistants; self-employed. |
|---|
Sedentary work | IT staff; accountants and auditors, clerical workers, private employees and administrators; office assistants and telephone operators; bank employees; engineers and architects; academics, social sciences and humanities; social workers; media and advertising people; general office work; academics science; vendors; university researchers; calculators, production planners and shippers, etc., executives; police and prison staff; technicians. |
Very loud noise | Slaughterhouse workers, metal workers; unskilled workers industry; mechanics and mechanical engineering and metal fitters industry; plumbers construction; food and beverage workers; masons and other construction workers; carpenters and joiners construction; skilled machinists industry; child minders; agricultural, horticultural and forestry workers; teachers and teacher assistants; chefs and kitchen assistant; school teachers; electricians; storage and dock workers, cleaners |
Note: *Differ statistically significant from the national average.
Source: NFA (2010c)
Gender-related differences
As was the case for the 2005 study, the significant differences in working conditions between men and women are to a large degree due to their different occupational patterns.
Unfortunately specific comparisons with the gender-related differences from the 2005 study can not be made because the 2010 study was based solely on questionnaires and some of the questions in the questionnaire had changed. However, it is possible to compare some of the overall tendencies.
Differences in working hours and workload
On average, men worked six hours more than women per week (Figure 4). Men experienced a higher workload than women, but there was no difference between men’s and women’s experience of work pace. Furthermore there was no significant difference between men’s and women’s experience of conflicts between work and private life.
The 2010 results follow tendencies from the 2005 study for longer working hours for men compared to women as well as no distinct gender-related differences in the experience of work–life balance.
Exposure to traditional risks
Women were found to be significantly more exposed to disturbing noise than men and twice as exposed to solvents (cleaning agents and disinfectants) than men (Figure 5). Furthermore women experienced higher levels of repeated arm and finger movements and sedentary work, although the difference was minor. Men were significantly more exposed to very loud noise, body vibrations and heavy lifting. Slightly more men than women were exposed to push and pull movements, whereas back twisting and bending was at about the same level for both sexes. The majority of the 2010 results follow the overall tendencies from the 2005 study.
Differences in psychosocial work factors
The tendencies identified from the 2010 study follow the overall tendencies from the 2005 study in terms of women experiencing a slightly worse psychosocial work environment than men when it came to higher emotional demands and ‘decision latitude’. Furthermore the 2010 study also found that women were more exposed to bullying, violence and threats of violence and, to a minor degree, ‘lower skill discretion’. Conversely men experienced less support from colleagues and superiors compared to women – a similar finding to 2005 tendencies. There were no significant differences in the experience of predictability, reward and self-rated health among men and women.
Commentary
No tendency towards an overall improvement or decline in the working conditions for Danish workers can be identified from the results of the Danish Work Environment Cohort Study 2010. As was the case with the 2005 study, progress and decline vary with specific work factors, job types and gender.
The most striking developments in the 2010 study compared with the 2005 study were the significant increase in workers exposed to bullying, violence or threats of violence and a further increase in emotional demands. In the light of this, the increase in people experiencing support from colleagues and superiors can be seen as a positive development.
But as noted in the 2005 study, it is important that the increase in emotional demands is also balanced by other factors in the psychosocial work environment such as decision latitude, skill discretion, predictability and meaning of work – areas where no significant improvements were identified in the 2010 study.
References
NFA (Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Arbejdsmiljø) (2010a), Metoden bag undersøgelsen Arbejdsmiljø og Helbred I Danmark 2010 [The method behind the study Work and Health in Denmark 2010], Copenhagen.
NFA (Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Arbejdsmiljø) (2010b), Udvikling fra 2005 til 2010 [Development from 2005 to 2010], Copenhagen.
NFA (Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Arbejdsmiljø) (2010c), Arbejdsmiljø og helbred fordelt på jobgrupper [Work environment and health by job groups], Copenhagen.
NFA (Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Arbejdsmiljø) (2010d), Arbejdsmiljøprofil for aldersgrupper og køn [Occupational profile by age and gender], Copenhagen.
Stine Milling and Helle Ourø Nielsen, Oxford Research
