[Comparison of the two methods of defining high-stress on the Japanese Stress Check Program].

Q4 Medicine
Aoi Kataoka, Hiroyuki Kikuchi, Yuko Odagiri, Yumiko Ohya, Yutaka Nakanishi, Teruichi Shimomitsu, Shigeru Inoue
{"title":"[Comparison of the two methods of defining high-stress on the Japanese Stress Check Program].","authors":"Aoi Kataoka,&nbsp;Hiroyuki Kikuchi,&nbsp;Yuko Odagiri,&nbsp;Yumiko Ohya,&nbsp;Yutaka Nakanishi,&nbsp;Teruichi Shimomitsu,&nbsp;Shigeru Inoue","doi":"10.1539/sangyoeisei.2020-017-B","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>In Japan, companies are required to implement a \"stress check program\" to prevent mental health problems in workers. To identify \"high-stress\" workers, the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ) is recommended. According to the stress check program manual issued by the government, high-stress can be defined using two criteria, either the \"sum method\" (simply summing the scores for each scales) or the \"score converted method\" (using converted scores according to the conversion table for each scales). In this study, we examined the differences in results found using these two criteria on \"stress check program\" data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data of 71,422 workers in 117 companies and organizations who conducted stress checks in 2016. The prevalence of high-stress was calculated by applying the two criteria simultaneously, and the chi-square test was used to compare the proportion of workers with high-stress. We subsequently divided participants into the four following groups and calculated the proportion of each group: group A was defined as having high-stress by both criteria; group B, only by the sum method; group C, only by the score converted method; and group D, not defined as high-stress by either criterion. We compared the average values of stress response among four groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and further compared the average values between group B and group C using the Bonferroni method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average age of participants was 43.7 ± 11.1, and 66.8% were males. The proportion of those defined as having high-stress were 11.7% using the sum method and 13.2% using the score converted method; the proportion of high-stress workers was thus significantly higher when using the score converted method (p <.001). Physical stress response was higher in group B; however, lack of vigor, irritation, fatigue, and depression were higher in group C (p <.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to the sum method, 1.5% more high-stress workers were observed using the converted method, and this result was similar for individual and employment-related factors. Furthermore, workers were more likely to be judged as having \"high-stress\" when the score of the physical stress response was higher in the sum method. Hereafter, it is important to consider which criteria are applied when discussing proportions of high-stress. Further research is needed to examine which criteria will predict health disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":40039,"journal":{"name":"Sangyo eiseigaku zasshi = Journal of occupational health","volume":"63 2","pages":"53-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sangyo eiseigaku zasshi = Journal of occupational health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1539/sangyoeisei.2020-017-B","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: In Japan, companies are required to implement a "stress check program" to prevent mental health problems in workers. To identify "high-stress" workers, the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ) is recommended. According to the stress check program manual issued by the government, high-stress can be defined using two criteria, either the "sum method" (simply summing the scores for each scales) or the "score converted method" (using converted scores according to the conversion table for each scales). In this study, we examined the differences in results found using these two criteria on "stress check program" data.

Methods: We used data of 71,422 workers in 117 companies and organizations who conducted stress checks in 2016. The prevalence of high-stress was calculated by applying the two criteria simultaneously, and the chi-square test was used to compare the proportion of workers with high-stress. We subsequently divided participants into the four following groups and calculated the proportion of each group: group A was defined as having high-stress by both criteria; group B, only by the sum method; group C, only by the score converted method; and group D, not defined as high-stress by either criterion. We compared the average values of stress response among four groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and further compared the average values between group B and group C using the Bonferroni method.

Results: The average age of participants was 43.7 ± 11.1, and 66.8% were males. The proportion of those defined as having high-stress were 11.7% using the sum method and 13.2% using the score converted method; the proportion of high-stress workers was thus significantly higher when using the score converted method (p <.001). Physical stress response was higher in group B; however, lack of vigor, irritation, fatigue, and depression were higher in group C (p <.01).

Conclusions: Compared to the sum method, 1.5% more high-stress workers were observed using the converted method, and this result was similar for individual and employment-related factors. Furthermore, workers were more likely to be judged as having "high-stress" when the score of the physical stress response was higher in the sum method. Hereafter, it is important to consider which criteria are applied when discussing proportions of high-stress. Further research is needed to examine which criteria will predict health disorders.

[在日本应力检查程序中定义高应力的两种方法比较]。
目的:在日本,公司被要求实施“压力检查计划”,以防止工人出现心理健康问题。为了识别“高压力”员工,建议使用简短的工作压力问卷(BJSQ)。根据政府发布的压力检查程序手册,高压力可以用两种标准来定义,一种是“和法”(简单地将每个量表的分数相加),另一种是“分数转换法”(根据每个量表的转换表使用转换后的分数)。在本研究中,我们检查了使用这两个标准在“压力检查程序”数据上发现的结果差异。方法:我们使用了117家公司和组织在2016年进行压力测试的71422名员工的数据。同时应用这两个标准计算高压力的患病率,并采用卡方检验比较高压力工人的比例。随后,我们将参与者分为以下四组,并计算每组的比例:A组被定义为具有高压力的两种标准;B组,仅采用求和法;C组仅采用积分折算法;D组,没有被任何一个标准定义为高压力。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验比较四组患者的应激反应平均值,并进一步采用Bonferroni法比较B组和C组患者的应激反应平均值。结果:参与者平均年龄为43.7±11.1岁,男性占66.8%。用总和法和得分转换法分别为11.7%和13.2%;结论:与总和法相比,采用得分转换法观察到的高压力员工比例增加了1.5%,并且在个人因素和就业相关因素上结果相似。此外,在求和法中,当身体压力反应得分较高时,工人更有可能被判断为“高压力”。以后,在讨论高应力的比例时,重要的是要考虑应用哪些标准。需要进一步的研究来检验哪些标准可以预测健康障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信