Citation

Hilton MF, Whiteford HA. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2010; 83(8): 923-933.

Affiliation

School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, A ustralia, michael_hilton@qcmhr.uq.edu.au.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s00420-010-0555-x

PMID

20596722

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study investigates associations between psychological distress and workplace accidents, workplace failures and workplace successes. METHODS: The Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ) was distributed to employees of 58 large employers. A total of 60,556 full-time employees were eligible for analysis. The HPQ probed whether the respondent had, in the past 30-days, a workplace accident, success or failure ("yes" or "no"). Psychological distress was quantified using the Kessler 6 (K6) scale and categorised into low, moderate and high psychological distress. Three binomial logistic regressions were performed with the dependent variables being workplace accident, success or failure. Covariates in the models were K6 category, gender, age, marital status, education level, job category, physical health and employment sector. RESULTS: Accounting for all other variables, moderate and high psychological distress significantly (P < 0.0001) increased the odds ratio (OR) for a workplace accident to 1.4 for both levels of distress. Moderate and high psychological distress significantly (P < 0.0001) increased the OR (OR = 2.3 and 2.6, respectively) for a workplace failure and significantly (P < 0.0001) decreased the OR for a workplace success (OR = 0.8 and 0.7, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and high psychological distress increase the OR's for workplace accidents work failures and decrease the OR of workplace successes at similar levels. As the prevalence of moderate psychological distress is approximately double that of high psychological distress moderate distress consequentially has a greater workplace impact.

Language: en