Aims: The purpose of this study was to describe psychosocial work environment inequalities among wage earners in Spain and Denmark. Methods: Data came from the Spanish COPSOQ (ISTAS 21) and the Danish COPSOQ II surveys both performed in 2004—05 and based on national representative samples of employees with a 60% response rate. Study population was 3,359 Danish and 6,685 Spanish women and men. Only identical items from both surveys were included to construct 18 psychosocial scales. Socioeconomic status was categorized according to the European Socioeconomic Classification System. Analysis included ordinal logistic regression and multiple correspondence analysis after categorizing all scales. Results: A relationship between socioeconomic status and psychosocial work environment in both Denmark and Spain was observed, with wider social inequalities in Spain for many scales, describing a strong interaction effect between socioeconomic status and country. Conclusions: Socioeconomic status is related to psychosocial work environment and some adverse psychosocial conditions tend to cluster in lower socioeconomic status groups in both Spain and Denmark. This effect could be modified by a country’s characteristics, such as economic and labour market structures, normative regulations and industrial relations including work organization. Hence, preventive strategies to reduce social inequalities in working conditions should consider the combination of actions at the macro and micro levels.
Iavicoli S. , Rondinone B., Marinaccio A., Fingerhut M.Research priorities in occupational safety and health: a review. Industrial Health2006;44:169-78.
2.
European Agency for Health and Safety at Work Future occupational safety and health research needsand priorities in the member states of the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publicationsof the European Communities; 2001.
3.
Head J., Chandola T.Psychosocial working conditions and social inequalities in health . In: Benach J, Muntaner C, Santana V, Chairs. Final report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH). Employment Conditions Knowledge Network (EMCONET) Final Report; 20 September 2007.
4.
Andersen I. , Burr H., Kristensen TS, Gamborg M., Osler M., Prescott E., et al. Do factors in the psychosocial work environment mediate the effect of socioeconomic position on the risk of myocardial infarction? Study from the Copenhagen Centre for Prospective Population Studies . Occup Environ Med2004;61:886-92.
5.
Chandola T. , Siegrist J., Marmot M.Do changes in effort-reward imbalance at work contribute to an explanation of the social gradient in angina?Occup Environ Med2005;62:223-30.
6.
Marmot MG, Bobak M., Davey Smith G.Explanations for social inequalities in health. In: Amick BC, Levine S, Tarlov AR, Chapman Walsh D, editors. Society & health. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
7.
Stansfeld SA, Head J., Marmot MGExplaining social class differences in depression and well-being. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol1998;33:1-9.
8.
Kouvonen A. , Kivimaki M., Virtanen M., Heponiemi T., Elovainio M., Pentti J., et al. Effort-reward imbalance at work and the co-occurrence of lifestyle risk factors: cross-sectional survey in a sample of 36,127 public sector employees. BMC Public Health2006;6:24.
9.
Kuper H., Singh-Manoux A., Siegrist J., Marmot M.When reciprocity fails: effort-reward imbalance in relation to coronary heart disease and health functioning within the Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med2002;59:777-84.
10.
Siegrist J.Reducing social inequalities in health: work-related strategies. Scand J Public Health Suppl2002 ;59:49-53.
11.
Bosma H., Marmot MG, Hemingway H., Nicholson AC, Brunner E., Stansfeld SALow job control and risk of coronary heart disease in Whitehall II (prospective cohort) study. BMJ1997;314:558-65.
12.
Siegrist J., Starke D., Chandola T., Godin I., Marmot M., Niedhammer I., et al. The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at workEuropean comparisons. Soc Sci Med2004;58:1483-99.
13.
Paoli P., Merilé D.III European Survey on Working Conditions. Luxembourg : Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2001.
14.
Parent-Thirion A., Fernández E., Hurley J., Vermeylen G.IV European survey on working conditions. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2007.
15.
Moncada S., Llorens C., Gimeno X., Font A.Exposición laboral a riesgos psicosociales en la población asalariada española. [Occupational exposure to psychosocial risk among employees in Spain.]. In: Moncada S, Llorens C, editors. Organización del Trabajo, Factores Psicosociales y Salud. [Work organization, psychosocial factors and health]. Madrid: ISTAS;2007.
16.
Kristensen TS, Borg V., Hannerz H.Socioeconomic status and psychosocial work environment: results for a Danish national study. Scand J Public Health2002;30 (Suppl 59):41-8.
17.
Kristensen TS , Moncada S., Llorens C., Navarro A.Psychosocial work environment in Spain and Denmark: a cross-cultural comparison. In: International Conference on Psychosocial Factors at Work; Okayama; 2005.
18.
Benach J., Muntaner C., Santana V., Chairs. Employment conditions and health inequalities. WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Employment Conditions Knowledge Network (EMCONET). Final Report, 20 September 2007 .
19.
MacDonald LA, Härenstam A., Warren ND, Punnett L.Incorporating work organisation into occupational health research: an invitation for dialogue . Occup Environ Med2008;65(1):1-3.
20.
Hofstede G.Culture’s consequences, comparing values, Behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage; 2001.
21.
Espelt A. , Borrell C., Rodríguez-Sanz M., Muntaner C., Pasarín MI, Benach M., Kunst AE, Navarro V.Inequalities in health by social class dimensions in European countries of different political traditions. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(5):1095-105.
22.
Moncada S. , Llorens C., Navarro A., Kristensen TSISTAS21 COPSOQ: versión en lengua castellana del cuestionario psicosocial de Copenhague [ISTAS21 COPSOQ: Spanish version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire] . Arch Preven Riesgos Laboral2005;8(1):18-29.
23.
Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TS, Borg V., Bjorner JB. The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ II). Scand J Publ Health2010;38(Suppl 3):8-24.
24.
Rose D., Pevalin DJ, Elias P., Martin J.Towards a European socio-economic classification: final report to Eurostat of the Expert Group. London and Colchester: ONS and ISER, University of Essex; 2001.
25.
Holland PW, Wainer H.Differential item functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc; 1993.
26.
Nagelkerke NJDA note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika1991;78:691-2.
27.
Pejtersen JH, Kristensen TSThe development of the psychosocial work environment in Denmark from 1997 to 2005. Scand J Work Environ Health2009;35:284-93.
28.
Greenacre MJCorrespondence analysis in practice. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2007.
29.
Lahera Sánchez A.La participación de los trabajadores en la calidad total: nuevos dispositivos disciplinarios de organización del trabajo [Workers participation in total quality: new disciplinary tools of work organization]. REIS2004; 106:63-102.
30.
Eironline.Collective agreements on changes in work organisation. Spain. Denmark. Comparative information. Thematic future. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions; 2005. Available on http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/thematicfeature9.htm (accessed 26 January 2009).
31.
Belkic K. , Landsbergis P., Schnall P., Baker D.Is job strain a major source of cardiovascular disease risk?Scand J Work Environ Health2004;30(2):85-128.
32.
Hasle P., Hvid H.Current work politics. In: Hvid H, Hasle P, editors. Human development and working life. Aldershot: Ashgate ; 2003. pp. 1-10.
33.
Parent-Thiron A., Fernández Macías E., Hurley J., Vermeylen G., et al. Fourth European Working Conditions Survey. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions; 2007.
34.
Rogaczewska AP , Larsen HH, Nordhaug O., Døving E., Gjelsvik M.Denmark and Norway: siblings or cousins? In: Brewster, C, Mayrhofer W , Morley M, editors. Human resource management in Europe - Evidence of convergence?Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004. pp. 231-78.
35.
Campell JL, Hall JAThe state of Denmark. In: Campell JL, Hall JA, Pedersen OK , editors. National identity and the varieties of capitalism . Copenhagen: DJF Publishing;2006.
36.
Due J., Jensen CS, Madsen JS, Petersen JKThe survival of the Danish model. Copenhagen: DJOF Forlagene;1994.
37.
Knudsen H.Employee participation in Europe. London: Sage; 1955.
38.
Lind J.Denmark - still the century of trade unionism. In: Hoffmann R, Waddington J , editors. Trade unions in Europe - facing challenges and searching for solutions. Brussels: European Trade Union Institute;2000. pp. 143-82.
39.
Eironline (2002). Denmark and Spain industrial relations profiles. In: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/Denmark.htm, and http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/country/Spain.htm (accessed 8 July 2009).
40.
Hvid H., Lund H., Pejtersen JHControl, flexibility and rhythms. Scand J Work Environ Health Suppl2008; (6):83-90.
41.
Madsen PKHow can it possibly fly? The paradox of a dynamic labour market in a Scandinavian welfare state. In: Campell J, Hall J, Pedersen O, editors. National identity and the varieties of capitalism. The Danish experience. Montreal: McGill University Press; 2006. pp. 321-55.
42.
Andersen SK , Mailand M.The Danish flexicurity model - the role of the collective bargaining system . Copenhagen: FAOS; 2005.
43.
Philips K., Eamets R.Approaches to flexicurity: EU models. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions; 2007.
44.
Schäfer G, Baryn M, Fritz M, Johansson A, Wieland U, editors. Europe in figures. Eurostat Yearbook 2006-7. Luxembourg : Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2008.
45.
Eironline.Unskilled workers. Spain. Denmark. Comparative information. Thematic future. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions; 2005. Available On http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/thematicfeature10.htm (accessed 26 January 2009).
46.
Köhler HDLas relaciones laborales españolas en el marco europeo [Spanish industrial relations in the European context] . In: Miguélez F y Prieto C (dir y coord): Las relaciones de empleo en España. Madrid: Siglo XXI; 1999.
47.
Prieto C.La degradación del empleo o la norma social del empleo flexibilizado. [The degration of employment or the social norm of flexible employment.]. Sistema2002 ;168-9.
48.
Feveile H. , Olsen O., Hogh A.A randomized trial of mailed questionnaires versus telephone interviews: response patterns in a survey. BMC Med Res Methodol2007;7(27): doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-27.
49.
Perkins JJ , Sanson-Fisher RW. An examination of self- and telephone-administered modes of administration for the Australian SF-36 . J Clin Epidemiol1998;51(11):969-73.
50.
de Leeuw EDMode effects in survey research: a comparison of mail, telephone, and face to face surveys. Bull Methodol Sociol1993;43:3-19.
51.
Gimeno X. , Llorens C., Moncada S., Navarro. Incidencias durante el trabajo de campo con encuestas personales en estudios epidemiológicos. [Events during field work with personal questionnaires in epidemiologic studies.]Metodología de encuestas, 2006; Monográfico incidencias en el trabajo de campo: 46-59.
52.
Kunst A., Roskam A-J., van Agt H.The European Socioeconomic Classification (ESeC): exploring its potential to describe class differences in health among middle-aged men and women in 11 European countries. Anonymous Paper presented to the ESeC Validation Conferencesee. Lisbon; 2006.
