Working conditions,health status and musculoskeletal disorders among hotel employees: A cross-sectional study in Türkiye

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Hotel employees perform a variety of jobs that expose them to numerous occupational health and safety risks, each with distinct dynamics.

OBJECTIVE:

This study aims to evaluate the occupational health and safety of hotel employees.

METHODS:

This cross-sectional study was conducted in Türkiye. The study population consisted of employees working in touristic facilities for at least one month. Six touristic facilities, with 177 employees, were selected for the study. We aimed to include all employees from these facilities. Data were collected using a form that included socio-demographic variables, work characteristics, and health examination findings. The final sample consisted of 150 employees.

RESULTS:

Among the participants, 74.0% were male. A total of 34.6% were aged between 40–49, and 38.7% were high school graduates. Over a quarter worked in the housekeeping department, and one-third had 1–5 years of employment. Half of the participants were smokers and rated their health status as good. Two-fifths reported working under stress. More than half mentioned that they stood for long periods while working and worked at a fast pace. Nearly half of the participants expressed dissatisfaction with their wages. Significant differences were found in neck pain according to the working department, in back pain according to perceived health status and heavy lifting, and in knee pain according to long-term standing.

CONCLUSIONS:

Hotel workers encounter various occupational risk factors and frequently suffer from related physical ailments. This study highlights the importance of addressing stress factors and ergonomic issues in hotel working conditions to improve workers’ health and well-being.

Keywords

Occupational health tourism health status ergonomics pain

1. Introduction

Occupational health and safety is a systematic and scientific approach developed to protect individuals from health risks during work activities [1]. In recent years, the tourism industry has overgrown, contributing significantly to the national income of some countries. However, it presents unique occupational health and safety risks [2]. Tourism encompasses accommodation, transportation, food and beverage services, travel, and recreational activities. Among these, hotels, a type of accommodation business, are a crucial component of the sector [3]. A hotel is defined as any building with six or more rooms designed to accommodate guests for sleeping purposes [4].

Hotel staff are exposed to various occupational hazards, including manual handling, heavy machinery and equipment, hot surfaces and substances, cutting and piercing tools, and chemical substances. These hazards can lead to injuries, disabilities, and an increased risk of infectious diseases, posing significant risks to occupational health and safety [5].

The most common health problems among hotel staff are physical pains resulting from repetitive movements and improper postures during service delivery [6]. The hospitality sector is generally highly stressful due to job insecurity, low wages, lack of dignity, and uncontrolled working conditions. Additionally, smoking is a significant occupational health issue for hotel staff, often linked to psychosocial risk factors [7].

In hotels, various personnel work in different departments, each facing distinct hazards depending on the services provided in the hospitality sector. Housekeeping staff, in particular, are prone to many health problems, especially musculoskeletal disorders [8]. Sprains and strains are common among housekeepers due to repetitive movements such as cleaning mirrors, lifting beds, and pushing cleaning trolleys [9].

Kitchen staff are often exposed to high heat, steam, direct fire, and the risk of electric shock. They can also sustain injuries while handling hot utensils and hand tools [10]. Reception staff may experience musculoskeletal and psychological issues due to workload, prolonged standing, and shift work [11].

Managers have many responsibilities, including overseeing all operations, creating work schedules, providing necessary equipment and materials, conducting training, and performing evaluations [12]. In addition to their administrative duties, managers may also need to participate in service delivery to ensure customer satisfaction, which is a top priority [13].

The diverse roles performed by numerous employees in hotels, a labor-intensive environment, introduce a variety of occupational health and safety risks due to different dynamics. Our study aims to evaluate hotel workers in terms of occupational health and safety. Specifically, we investigated the ergonomic risk factors that hotel employees encounter in their work environment, the health issues they experience, and the working conditions that lead to stress and dissatisfaction. Furthermore, we analyzed the relationships between these factors.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study design

The study is cross-sectional and conducted in Ankara, the second-largest province in Turkey. Tourism in Ankara is primarily driven by domestic visitors and mainly focuses on cultural attractions. In 2022, Ankara was Turkey’s fifth most popular city for overnight stays, attracting 3.2 million visitors. Additionally, Ankara ranks sixth among the 81 provinces regarding the number of available beds.

The study population consisted of employees working in touristic facilities in Ankara for at least one month. We used a chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom to determine the minimum required sample size, aiming for 90% statistical power, an effect size of 0.25, and a significance level of α = 0.05. This calculation indicated that at least 169 participants were needed.

2.2. Participants and data collection

We obtained a list of touristic facilities in the city center from the Directorate of Culture and Tourism. Facilities with at most ten employees were excluded from the study. Smaller facilities may have unique working conditions that introduce variability and potentially bias the results. Focusing on larger facilities, we aimed to achieve a more representative sample of typical working conditions and health issues hotel employees face in the city center. This approach could help to obtain more robust and reliable data for analyzing the factors affecting working conditions and musculoskeletal system problems among hotel workers. Treating each facility as a cluster, we used a random number table to select six touristic facilities, which together employed 177 individuals. Participants who were aged 18 and older, could speak Turkish, were willing to participate in the study and had been working in hotel facilities for at least one month were included in the study. Participants under 18 years of age, who could not speak Turkish, refused to participate in the study and who had been working in hotel facilities for less than one month were excluded from the study. We aimed to include all employees who meet the inclusion criteria from these selected facilities in the study.

Data collection occurred in 2022, involving at least two visits to the facilities, where 150 employees were reached. Participants completed questionnaires under researcher supervision, with health examinations conducted by researchers in the facilities’ infirmary. Each questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes, resulting in a response rate of 84.7%.

2.3. Measurement

We developed a comprehensive data collection form after thoroughly reviewing existing literature. This form comprised four sections, encompassing 51 questions. The initial section aimed to gather socio-demographic information, including gender, age, and education level. The subsequent section delved into aspects associated with participants’ professional lives, covering topics such as working hours, smoking and alcohol consumption habits, as well as the presence of chronic illnesses. The third section focused on health examination results, encompassing factors like self-perceived health status, occurrences of occupational accidents, and employee evaluations regarding work-related aspects. Lastly, the fourth section incorporated the Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire, which examined musculoskeletal issues among the participants. Throughout the form, inquiries were made regarding factors causing disruptions in the work environment, health-related complaints, musculoskeletal problems, ergonomically unsuitable conditions at work, and factors contributing to stress or dissatisfaction among employees.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science 23.0 program. Descriptive statistics presented categorical variables as numbers and percentages, while numerical variables were expressed as mean±standard deviation and median (minimum-maximum value). Pearson and Fisher’s chi-square tests and Yates continuity correction were utilized to compare categorical variables. A statistical significance level of p < 0.05 was applied throughout the study.

2.5. Ethical considerations

This study adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Commission at Gazi University on 11/01/2022 (2022-033).

3. Results

The study involved 150 of 177 individuals employed in hotel establishments for at least one month. Regrettably, we could not reach 15 employees due to their shift work. Additionally, during the short data collection period, we could not contact seven employees on leave. Furthermore, five employees expressed reluctance to participate in the study.

The average age of the participants was 40.08±9.97 years (min:18-max:59). On average, participants had been working in their current workplace for 6.72±7.11 years (min:0.08–max:36). They worked 8.24±0.73 hours a day (min:7–max:12).

In our study, 74.0% of participants were male. Regarding age distribution, 34.6% were between 40–49 years old. Education-wise, 38.7% had completed high school. In terms of occupation, 27.3% worked in the housekeeping department. Concerning employment tenure, 30.0% had less than ten years of total employment, while 33.3% had 1–5 years of experience in the hotel industry. The majority, 76.7%, worked 8 hours per day. Additionally, 50.7% of participants reported being smokers, and 27.3% stated they consumed alcohol. Health-wise, 14.7% had chronic diseases, but 51.3% described their health status as good (Table 1).

Table 1.
Descriptive characteristics of the participants.

Number Percentage

(n) (%)

Gender (n = 150)

Male 111 74.0

Female 39 26.0

Age (n = 150)

Under 30 years 24 16.0

30–39 years 43 28.7

40–49 years 52 34.6

50 years and older 31 20.7

Graduational status (n = 150)

Primary school 48 32.0

High school 58 38.7

Bachelor’s degree 44 29.3

Department (n = 150)

Housekeeping 41 27.3

Food and beverage department 39 26.0

Front desk 36 24.0

Administrative units 18 12.0

Others 16 10.7

Working time in total (n = 150)

Less than 10 years 45 30.0

10–19 years 42 28.0

20–29 years 41 27.3

30 years and above 22 14.7

Working time in hotels (n = 150)

Less than 1 year 27 18.0

1–5 years 50 33.3

6–10 years 37 24.7

More than 10 years 36 24.0

Daily working time (n = 150)

8 hours 115 76.7

More than 8 hours 35 23.3

Cigarette smoking (n = 150)

Yes 76 50.7

No 74 49.3

Alcohol drinking (n = 150)

Yes 41 27.3

No 109 72.7

Presence of chronic disease (n = 150)

Yes 22 14.7

No 128 85.3

Perceived health status (n = 150)

Very good 27 18.0

Good 77 51.3

Fair 40 26.7

Bad 4 2.7

Very bad 2 1.3

	Number	Percentage
Gender (n = 150)
Male	111	74.0
Female	39	26.0
Age (n = 150)
Under 30 years	24	16.0
30–39 years	43	28.7
40–49 years	52	34.6
50 years and older	31	20.7
Graduational status (n = 150)
Primary school	48	32.0
High school	58	38.7
Bachelor’s degree	44	29.3
Department (n = 150)
Housekeeping	41	27.3
Food and beverage department	39	26.0
Front desk	36	24.0
Administrative units	18	12.0
Others	16	10.7
Working time in total (n = 150)
Less than 10 years	45	30.0
10–19 years	42	28.0
20–29 years	41	27.3
30 years and above	22	14.7
Working time in hotels (n = 150)
Less than 1 year	27	18.0
1–5 years	50	33.3
6–10 years	37	24.7
More than 10 years	36	24.0
Daily working time (n = 150)
8 hours	115	76.7
More than 8 hours	35	23.3
Cigarette smoking (n = 150)
Yes	76	50.7
No	74	49.3
Alcohol drinking (n = 150)
Yes	41	27.3
No	109	72.7
Presence of chronic disease (n = 150)
Yes	22	14.7
No	128	85.3
Perceived health status (n = 150)
Very good	27	18.0
Good	77	51.3
Fair	40	26.7
Bad	4	2.7
Very bad	2	1.3

Regarding work-related incidents, only 1.3% reported a work accident last year. Additionally, 9.3% were absent due to health problems, and 3.3% did not receive their salary in full and on time. Moreover, 12.0% did not receive overtime wages as agreed, and 11.3% faced irregularities in using their weekly and annual leaves. A significant portion, 55.3%, felt their wage did not match their efforts. Meanwhile, 40.0% reported working under stress, and 9.3% expressed dissatisfaction with their job. Additionally, 23.3% believed their job negatively impacted their health (Table 2).

Table 2.

Participants’ evaluations regarding their jobs.

	Number	Percentage
	(n)	(%)
Having had an occupational accident (n = 150)
Yes	2	1.3
No	148	98.7
Absence from work due to health problems (n = 150)
Yes	14	9.3
No	136	90.7
Receiving salary complete and on time (n = 150)
Yes	145	96.7
No	5	3.3
Receiving overtime payment full and on time (n = 150)
Yes	132	88.0
No	18	12.0
Being able to take weekly and annual leaves regularly (n = 150)
Yes	133	88.7
No	17	11.3
Believing that the received wage is equivalent to their labor (n = 150)
Yes	67	44.7
No	83	55.3
Working under stress (n = 150)
Yes	60	40.0
No	90	60.0
Having job satisfaction (n = 150)
Yes	136	90.7
No	14	9.3
Thinking that work affects health negatively (n = 150)
Yes	35	23.3
No	115	76.7

In the work environment, participants are most disturbed by cold, noise, chemicals, foul odors, and a messy workspace. Additionally, they cited cigarette smoke, dust, heat, inadequate ventilation, and wind as significant concerns. Regarding physical discomfort, the top five complaints among participants in the last month were fatigue, back pain, lower back pain, headache, and neck pain, indicating a notable impact on their well-being (Table 3).

Table 3.

The factors that the participants feel uncomfortable in the working environment and the complaints they have in the last month.

	Number (n)	Percentage (%)		Number (n)	Percentage (%)
Cold	42	28.0	Heat	23	15.3
Noise	41	27.3	Insufficient ventilation	22	14.7
Cleaning agents	34	22.7	Wind/airflow	20	13.3
Bad odor	32	21.3	Dirty work environment	19	12.7
Messy work environment	32	21.3	Inappropriate lighting	17	11.3
Cigarette smoke	29	19.3	Moisture	9	6.0
Dust	28	18.7	Paint/glue	5	3.3
Back pain	60	40.0	Burnout	18	12.0
Low back pain	55	36.7	Stomach upset	17	11.3
Neck pain	47	31.3	Burning in eyes	16	10.7
Shoulder pain	34	22.7	Distractibility	15	10.0
Arm/elbow pain	30	20.0	Defect of vision	14	9.3
Knee pain	28	18.7	Anxiety	14	9.3
Foot/ankle pain	24	16.0	Cough	10	6.7
Hip/leg pain	23	15.3	Introversion	9	6.0
Hand/wrist pain	22	14.7	Shortness of breath	9	6.0
Tiredness	64	42.7	Skin rash/itch	8	5.3
Headache	51	34.0	Tingle	7	4.7
Irritability	35	23.3	Anorexia	7	4.7
Sleeping disorder	33	22.0	Hearing loss	4	2.7

Moreover, the study revealed common workplace practices contributing to discomfort. More than half of the participants reported prolonged standing and fast-paced work, while half engaged in repetitive movements and two-fifths frequently bent during tasks. Additionally, dissatisfaction with work-related factors was evident, with nearly half of the participants expressing concerns about inadequate wages. Furthermore, 29.3% reported an excessive workload, and 24.3% cited pressure to maintain high customer satisfaction levels as a source of discontent (Table 4).

Table 4.

The situations that participants often encounter while working and the factors leading to stress and dissatisfaction.

	Number (n)	Percentage (%)
Standing for a long time	86	57.3
Working fast	83	55.3
Repeating the same movement	75	50.0
Frequently bending	60	40.0
Climbing/descending stairs	41	27.3
Looking at the computer screen for a long time	40	26.7
Heavy lifting	27	18.0
Long distance walking	25	17.3
Prolonged sitting	25	16.7
Working with hands above shoulder level	17	11.3
Insufficient wage	74	49.3
Excessive workload	42	28.0
Obligation to keep customer satisfaction	36	24.0
at the highest level
Inability to take a break	25	16.7
Dismissal anxiety	20	13.3
Obligation to always be smiling	20	13.3
Shift working conditions	18	12.0
Inability to be promoted	18	12.0
Dress code requirement	18	12.0
Manager’s pressure	16	10.7
Incompatibility with coworkers	16	10.7
Working overtime	13	8.7

Table 5 presents the prevalance of pain in the last month based on various characteristics. Significant differences were observed in the prevalence of shoulder pain with respect to the participant’s department (p = 0.033) and activity of heavy lifting (p = 0.049). The prevalence of back pain was higher in participants who reported their perceived health status as “not good” (p = 0.006) and who were engaged in heavy lifting activities (p = 0.002), and also there were significant differences in the prevalence of low back pain with respect to the participant’s gender (p = 0.028), department (p = 0.041), activity of heavy lifting (p = 0.040), and working with hands above shoulder level (p = 0.044).

Table 5.

Pain complaints in the last month, according to some characteristics of the participants.

	Shoulder pain		Back pain		Low back pain		Arm/Elbow pain		Knee pain		Ankle/Foot Pain
	Yes (%)	Yes (n)	Yes (%)	Yes (n)	Yes (%)	Yes (n)	Yes (%)	Yes (n)	Yes (%)	Yes (n)	Yes (%)	Yes (n)
Gender (n = 150)
Female (n = 39)	28.2	11	48.7	19	51.3	20	33.3	13	25.6	10	23.1	9
Male (n = 111)	20.7	23	36.9	41	31.5	35	15.3	17	16.2	18	13.5	15
	p=0.337		p=0.196		p =0.028		p =0.016		p=0.194		p=0.161
Graduational status (n = 150)
Primary school (n = 48)	18.8	9	39.6	19	39.6	19	37.5	18	31.2	15	31.2	15
High school (n = 58)	22.4	13	37.9	22	34.5	20	12.1	7	13.8	8	10.3	6
Bachelor’s degree (n = 44)	27.3	12	43.2	19	36.4	16	11.4	5	11.4	5	6.8	3
	p=0.620		p=0.864		p=0.862		p =0.001		p =0.024		p =0.002
Department (n = 135)
Front desk (n = 36)	22.2	8	44.4	16	38.9	14	5.6	2	16.7	6	11.1	4
Administrative unit (n = 19)	42.1	8	42.1	8	42.1	8	21.1	4	5.3	1	5.3	1
Housekeeping (n = 41)	31.7	13	48.8	20	51.2	21	41.5	17	26.8	11	31.7	13
Food and beverage department (n = 39)	10.3	4	33.3	13	20.5	8	15.4	6	20.5	8	10.3	4
	p =0.033		p=0.560		p =0.041		p =0.001		p=0.251		p =0.014
Perceived health status (n = 150)
Good (n = 104)	19.2	20	32.7	34	35.6	37	13.5	14	13.5	14	9.6	10
Not good (n = 46)	30.4	14	56.5	26	39.1	18	34.8	16	30.4	14	30.4	14
	p=0.131		p =0.006		p=0.677		p =0.003		p =0.014		p =0.001
Heavy lifting (n = 150)
No (n = 123)	19.5	24	34.1	42	32.8	41	19.5	24	15.4	19	13.1	16
Yes (n = 27)	37.0	10	66.7	18	53.6	14	22.2	6	33.3	9	28.6	8
	p =0.049		p =0.002		p =0.040		p=0.750		p =0.031		p =0.044
Repeating the same difficult movement (n = 150)
No (n = 75)	24.0	18	34.7	26	32.0	24	13.3	10	13.3	10	10.7	8
Yes (n = 75)	21.3	16	45.3	34	41.3	31	26.7	20	24.0	18	21.3	16
	p=0.697		p=0.182		p=0.236		p =0.041		p=0.094		p=0.075
Working with hands above shoulder level (n = 150)
No (n = 133)	21.8	29	39.1	52	33.8	25	19.5	26	18.8	25	16.5	22
Yes (n = 17)	29.4	5	47.1	8	58.8	10	23.5	4	17.6	3	11.8	2
	p=0.481		p=0.528		p =0.044		p=0.699		p=0.909		p=0.613
Frequently bending (n = 150)
No (n = 90)	18.9	17	34.4	31	32.2	29	13.3	12	15.6	14	13.3	12
Yes (n = 60)	28.3	17	48.3	29	43.3	26	30.0	18	23.3	14	20.0	12
	p=0.176		p=0.089		p=0.167		p =0.012		p=0.231		p=0.275
Prolonged standing (n = 150)
No (n = 64)	28.1	18	40.6	26	39.1	25	17.2	11th	9.4	6	10.9	7
Yes (n = 86)	18.6	16	39.5	34	34.9	30	22.1	19	25.6	22	19.8	17
	p=0.168		p=0.893		p=0.599		P=0.458		p =0.018		p=0.145

While the participants’ having arm/elbow pain showed significant differences with respect to the participant’s gender, educational status, department, perceived health status, activities of repeating the same strenuous movement and frequent bending (p = 0.016, p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.003, p = 0.041, p = 0.012); the participants’ having knee pain showed significant differences with respect to the participant’s educational status, perceived health status, activity of heavy lifting and standing for a long time. There were also significant differences in the prevalence of foot/ankle pain with respect to the participants’ educational status, department, perceived health status, and activity of heavy lifting (p = 0.002, p = 0.014, p = 0.001, p = 0.044).

4. Discussion

This study assessed occupational health and safety in the hotel industry, focusing on ergonomic risk factors, health issues, musculoskeletal disorders, and working conditions among 150 hotel employees. Participants faced various challenges, particularly concerning ergonomic issues, such as prolonged standing, fast-paced work, repetitive movements, and frequent bending. Additionally, concerns regarding inadequate wages, excessive workload, and difficulties taking regular leaves were noted, contributing to reported stress and job dissatisfaction. The study revealed a high prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints, with participants experiencing shoulder, back, low back, arm/elbow, knee, and foot/ankle pain. Gender, department, educational level, perceived health status, repetitive movements, and heavy lifting significantly influenced the occurrence of pain.

We indicated that approximately half of the participants were smokers. Similarly, research conducted in Turkey revealed that approximately half of hotel employees either smoked or were exposed to smoking environments [14]. Likewise, a study in Israel found that about half of hotel workers smoked, with three out of ten being heavy smokers [15]. In the U.K., four out of ten hotel workers were reported as smokers [16]. According to statistics from Turkey, 33.2% of individuals aged 15 years and older use tobacco and related products [17]. Our findings suggest that a significant proportion of hotel employees are smokers, exceeding the national average. We hypothesize that the high-stress levels and socialization needs experienced by employees in the hospitality sector may contribute to this trend.

This study revealed that nearly half of hotel employees believed their wages did not align with their labor and expressed dissatisfaction due to inadequate pay. Notably, average wages in hotels and restaurants remain comparatively low across most European Union member states [18]. Similar findings have been observed in studies conducted in Malaysia and Kenya, where average wages in the hospitality sector were found to be lower than those in other industries [19, 20]. Despite the pivotal role of the tourism sector in the economy and its reputation as a labor-intensive field, research indicates that wages within this sector tend to lag behind those in other industries, leading to widespread dissatisfaction among hotel workers [21,22]. Furthermore, the fear of unemployment often prevents employees from openly voicing their concerns about inadequate wages. In our study, nine out of ten employees reported job satisfaction, which may be attributed to the reluctance to express dissatisfaction due to employment concerns openly.

According to our study findings, 40% of individuals perceive themselves as working under stress. A study conducted in the United States highlighted the relatively high-stress levels among hotel employees, with stress factors being reported 40–62% of the time [23]. Similarly, research conducted in Indian hotels revealed that 58% of employees experienced significant stress levels. This stress was found to vary significantly based on age, gender, and job nature, with factors such as unsafe working conditions and heavy workloads being prominent stressors [24]. Given the nuanced demands of the hospitality industry and societal perceptions towards this profession, common stressors in typical workplaces are amplified among certain hospitality sector employees [25]. Our study results align with the existing literature. Minor variations in reported frequencies across different countries may stem from variances in working conditions and social demographics.

The study’s findings indicate that more than half of hotel workers spend extended periods standing, half engage in repetitive strenuous movements, and three out of every ten employees lift heavy loads. Pain complaints across various body parts were more prevalent among workers who lifted heavy loads than those who did not. Another study conducted in Turkey revealed that nearly seventy percent of work in hotel establishments involves prolonged standing. It applies to waiters, receptionists, hostesses, kitchen staff, laundry attendants, and housekeepers, who typically perform long-term standing tasks [26]. A guidebook on occupational health and safety in Singapore highlighted that work at hotel receptions often necessitates unnatural postures, repetitive tasks, and prolonged standing [27]. The hotel and catering industry ranks as the second most reported musculoskeletal risk factor, following manufacturing in the United States. Ergonomic risk factors faced by hotel workers, including unnatural and static postures, repetitive movements, excessive force exertion, and heavy lifting, have been linked to work-related musculoskeletal disorders [28]. According to a study conducted in India, musculoskeletal pain is twice as prevalent among hotel workers who frequently lift heavy loads. Back pain and neck pain occur 2.5 times more frequently, while joint pain is approximately three times more common in hotel workers involved in heavy lifting than in other occupations [29]. Our study contributes to the existing literature by identifying the frequency of ergonomic risk factors encountered by hotel workers, aiming to mitigate various health issues and enhance productivity. These studies collectively underscore the physical demands of hotel work as a significant contributor to musculoskeletal problems.

This study identified thermal comfort and noise as the most prevalent risk factors causing disturbance among hotel employees in their work environment. Approximately four out of ten employees reported being disturbed by thermal comfort, while three out of ten indicated disturbance due to noise. In a separate study conducted in Turkey, ventilation and thermal comfort were cited by four out of ten employees, with noise mentioned by three out of ten [30]. Unlike ours, the emphasis on ventilation as a disturbing factor in the Turkish study might be attributed to its focus solely on kitchen workers. A study in Spain echoed our findings, reporting that four out of ten hotel workers encountered noise issues, with three out of ten facing high temperatures [31]. These results align closely with ours. Considering that workplace risk factors can contribute to occupational accidents by increasing the likelihood of errors, the prevalence rates we observed should not be underestimated.

A recent study revealed that four out of ten employees experienced back and low back pain when queried about work-related complaints in the past month. It aligns with findings from Spain, where research highlighted the lumbar region as the most commonly afflicted body part with pain, both in the short and long term [32]. Similarly, a study conducted in the United States showcased a stark reality: a mere 5% of hotel workers reported being free from bodily pain in the preceding four weeks, with nearly 60% indicating severe back pain. Notably, this prevalence surpassed that observed in the general population [33]. In Ethiopia, the prevalence of low back pain among hotel workers was staggering, reaching 58%. Contrastingly, in England, it stood at 46% [34,35]. Despite conjectures regarding the potential influence of departmental distribution and gender among participants on the observed differences in pain prevalence, it is noteworthy that the prevalences in these studies remained consistently high.

The study findings indicate a higher prevalence of shoulder pain among administrative staff compared to employees in other units. Previous research has identified several biomechanical risk factors associated with neck and shoulder pain commonly encountered by desk workers. These include maintaining constrained postures, performing tasks with raised arms, and engaging in repetitive movements [36 –38]. A study conducted in Denmark revealed that individuals with prolonged sitting durations were more prone to experiencing neck and shoulder discomfort [39]. Beyond biomechanical factors, the literature highlights various psychosocial risk elements contributing to neck and shoulder pain. These include high job demands, psychological stress, and limited social support [40,41]. Notably, administrative staff in accommodation establishments represent a vulnerable group. They often face stress while striving to address customers’ demands and maintain organizational order promptly.

Our study noted that workers who reported poor health were more inclined to report pain in various body regions. A study conducted in Brazil yielded similar findings, demonstrating that individuals who rated their health as “poor or very poor” were more likely to report chronic pain compared to those who rated their health as “good or very good” [42]. Furthermore, it was observed that individuals reporting less pain tended to perceive themselves as healthier. A study in the United States of America identified a strong correlation between pain and self-assessment of health. Those experiencing pain were significantly more inclined to rate their health as poor/moderate, whereas those not experiencing pain were more likely to rate their health as excellent [43]. Similarly, a study in Canada revealed a link between pain and perceived health status, particularly among those experiencing prolonged pain [44]. Our current study aligns with existing literature, highlighting pain as a crucial factor influencing perceived health status.

One of the study’s limitations is that the evaluations of the work and the ergonomic risk factors encountered are based on the participants’ statements. When the cross-sectional nature and low participant number of the study are added, there are limitations in causality and generalizability of the results. This study may lead to larger-scale studies.

5. Conclusion

In our investigation of hotel workers, we have uncovered significant occupational health and safety concerns. From prevalent ergonomic risk factors to high levels of workplace stress and elevated smoking rates, our findings underscore the urgent need for interventions to improve the well-being of hotel employees.

Addressing these challenges is paramount for creating healthier and more sustainable workplaces in the hospitality sector. Initiatives focusing on ergonomic improvements, stress management programs, and the promotion of smoke-free environments can play a crucial role in enhancing hotel workers’ occupational health and safety.

By implementing targeted interventions, policymakers, employers, and stakeholders can create a safer and more supportive work environment for hotel employees. Furthermore, prioritizing the well-being of workers in the hospitality industry can lead to improved job satisfaction, productivity, and overall organizational success.

In conclusion, our study emphasizes addressing the hotel industry’s occupational health and safety challenges. By taking proactive measures to mitigate ergonomic risks, alleviate workplace stress, and promote healthier behaviors, we can foster a more positive and conducive working environment for hotel workers.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Meryem Duru for her efforts during the data collection phase.

ORCID iDs

İrem Medeni

Özge Tonbuloğlu Altıner

Volkan Medeni

Mustafa Necmi İlhan

Ethical approval

This study adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Commission at Gazi University on 11/01/2022 (2022-033).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants, in accordance with institutional guidelines, prior to their participation in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

Funding

The authors did not receive funding, grants, or support from any organization for the submitted work.

References

Taştan

Köksal

. Psychosocial Risks Perceived by Kitchen Employees Working in Tourism Industry: A Research in Mersin Hotels, Journal of Tourism and Gastronomy Studies . 2020;8(2):1016-32. [Article in Turkish] https://doi.org/10.21325/jotags.2020.593

Ovacıllı

. Determination of Health and Safety Situation and Working Conditions of Employees in a Five-Star Hotel in Ankara, MSc Thesis for Occupational Health Program. Hacettepe University Institute of Health Sciences. Ankara, Türkiye , 2009. [Thesis in Turkish].

Davras

Ö.

Gülmez

. Factors Affecting The Satisfaction of Employees in Hotel Managements: A Study in Kemer-Lara-Belek-Side-Alanya Regions, Anatola: Journal of Tourism Research . 2013;4(2):167–84. [Article in Turkish].

Rajini

Fernando

Serapperuma

. Preventive Methods Used For Health and Safety Hazards in Hotel Industry in Sri Lanka, World Construction Conference-Global Challenges in Construction Industry. Colombo, Sri Lanka , 2012.

Abdullahi

Garba

Baba

Musa

Muhammad

. Critical Assessment of Occupational Health Hazard in Hospitality sector in Kano State, Nigeria, International Journal of Scientific Reports . 20217(8):410–5. https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-2156.IntJSciRep20212832

Mendoza

Habibi

Hiwatig

Macalalad

Malibiran

Tolentino

et al. Occupational Hazards among Resort Hotel Workers in District IV of Batangas, Philippines, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Sciences . 2019;6(4):84–94.

Liang

Guan

Yin

Zhou

. Patterns of smoking and its association with psychosocial work conditions among blue-collar and service employees of hospitality venues in Shenyang, PR China, BMC Public Health . 2010;10:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-37

Chela-Alvarez

Bulilete

Garcia-Illan

Vidal-Thomàs

Llobera

. Arenal Group Hotel house keepers and occupational health: experiences and perceived risks, Ann Occupational Environmental Medicine . 2022;34:e29.https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2022.34.e29

. Occupational Health Hazards in Hospitality sector and Their Prevention (Review article), Egyptian Journal of Occupational Medicine . 2021;44(1):65–80. https://doi.org/10.21608/EJOM.2021.143334.

10.

Malik

Rather

. A Study on Occupational Health Hazards Among Cooks of Hotels, International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health . 2017;4(1):27–8.

11.

Chauhan

Sondhi

. Posture-Related Musculoskeletal Problems among Hotel Receptionists in Mumbai: A Cross-Sectional Study, Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine . 2020;24(3):157–62. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijoem.IJOEM_275_18

12.

Bowen

Ford

. Managing service organizations: Does having a “thing” make a difference? Journal of Management . 2002;28(3):447–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800309

13.

Ford

Sturman

Heaon

. Managing Quality Service in Hospitality: How Organizations Achieve Excellence in the Guest Experience, Cencage Learning, New York, USA , 2012.

14.

Erdogan

Arslan

. Nasal and Pharyngeal Carriage of Staphylococcus aureus among Hotel Staff and Risk Assessment, Klimik Jounal . 2011;24(2):90–3. [Article in Turkish] https://doi.org/10.5152/kd.2011.21

15.

Belhassen

Shani

. Hotel workers’ substance use and abuse, International Journal of Hospitality Management . 2012;31(4):1292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.03.011

16.

Semmonds

Bailey

Bentley

Chase

Fernando

Guruge

et al. Smoking in hotels: prevalence, and opinions about restrictions, Australian Journal of Public Health . 1995;19(1):98–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.1995.tb00307.x

17.

Ministry of Health. Turkey Nutrition and Health Survey, Ankara,Türkiye, 2019.

18.

Aynalem

Birhanu

Tesefay

. Employment opportunities and challenges in tourism and hospitality sectors, Journal of Tourism and Hospitality . 2016;5(6):1–5. https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0269.1000257

19.

Aarabi

Subramaniam

Akeel

. Relationship between motivational factors and job performance of employees in Malaysian service industry, Asian Social Science . 2013;9(9):301–8. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n9p301

20.

Nuanghu

Bula

. Relationship between work stress and performance of employees: A case study of Transit Hotel in Nairobi City County, Archives’ of Business Research . 2015;3(6):22–37. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.36.1538

21.

Işık

Doğru

Türk

. A nexus of linear and non-linear relationships between tourism demand, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: Theory and evidence, International Journal of Tourism Research . 2018;20(1):38–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2151

22.

Brandt

. Wage determinants in the Swedish tourism sector, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism . 2018;18(1):18–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016.1206832

23.

O’Neill

Davis

. Work stress and well-being in the hotel industry, International Journal of Hospitality Management . 2011;30(2):385–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.07.007

24.

Goswami

Dsilva

. Impact of job satisfaction and job stress on employees’ life in Mumbai’s hospitality sector: An empirical study using SEM, Journal of Strategy and Management . 2019;12(3):330–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-01-2019-0012

25.

Garda

. Focusing on Healthy Living After the Pandemic: A Study on Cigarette Consumption of Hospitality Business Employees, Journal of Selçuk University Social Sciences Vocational School . 2022;25:335–49. [Article in Turkish] https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1134127

26.

Bozkurt

Meriç

Kaymış

. Evaluation of ergonomic risks in hotel: The case of Van, Journal of Tourism Theory and Research . 2020;6(1):20–34.https://doi.org/10.24288/jttr.613975

27.

Ministry of Manpower. Occupational Safety and Health Guidelines forthe Hotel Industry. Singapore , 2003.

28.

Lee

Mun

Lee

Kim

. The relationship between musculoskeletal symptoms and work-related risk factors in hotel workers, Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine . 2013;25(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/2052-4374-25-20

29.

Gawde

. A study of musculoskeletal pain among hotel employees, India, Journal of Ecophysiology and Occupational Health . 2018;18(1-2):43–50. https://doi.org/10.18311/jeoh/2018/20012

30.

Demirtaş

Ş|

Demirtaş

. Evaluation of Working Environment, Psychosocial Stress and Qualıty of Life in theKitchen Employees, Journal of Engineering, Science and Design . 2015;3(3):517–22. [Article in Turkish]

31.

Ariza-Montes

Hernández-Perlines

Han

Law

. Human dimension of the hospitality sector: Working conditions and psychological well-being among European servers, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management . 2019;41:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.10.013

32.

Sánchez-Rodríguez

Bulilete

Chela-Alvarez

Velasco-Roldán

Llobera-Canaves

. Chronic Pain and Work Conditions of Hotel Housekeepers: A Descriptive Study, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health . 2022;19(6):3383. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063383

33.

Krause

Scherzer

Rugulies

. Physical workload, work intensification, and prevalence of pain in low wage workers: Results from a participatory research project with hotel room cleaners in Las Vegas, American Journal of Industrial Medicine . 2005;48(5):326–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20221

34.

Wami

Abere

Dessie

Getachew

. Work-related risk factors and the prevalence of low back pain among low wage workers: results from a cross-sectional study, BMC Public Health . 2019;19(1):1072. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7430-9

35.

Woods

Buckle

. Musculoskeletal ill health amongst cleaners and recommendations for work organisational change, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics . 2006;36(1):61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2005.08.001

36.

Côté

van der Velde

Cassidy

Carroll

HoggJohnson

Holm

et al. The burden and determinants of neck painin workers: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders, European Spine Journal . 2008;17(Suppl 1):60–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181643ee4

37.

Larsson

Søgaard

Rosendal

. Work related neck–shoulder pain: a review on magnitude, risk factors,biochemical characteristics, clinical picture and preventiveinterventions. Best Practice & Research: Clinical Rheumatology . 2007;21(3):447–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2007.02.015

38.

Palmer

Smedley

. Work relatedness of chronic neck pain with physical findings—a systematic review, Scandinavian Journalof Work, Environment and Health . 2007;33(3):165–91. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1134

39.

Hallman

Gupta

Mathiassen

Holtermann

. Association between objectively measured sitting time and neck–shoulder pain among blue-collar workers, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health . 2015;88(8):1031–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-015-1031-4

40.

Bongers

Ijmker

van den Heuvel

Blatter

. Epidemiology of work related neck and upper limb problems: psychosocial and personal risk factors (Part I) and effective interventions from a bio behavioural perspective (Part II), Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation . 2006;16(3):272–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-006-9044-1

41.

Christensen

Knardahl

. Time-course of occupationalpsychological and social factors as predictors of new-onset andpersistent neck pain: a three-wave prospective study over 4 years. Pain . 1262;155(7):1262–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2014.03.021

42.

Pereira

de Vasconcelos

Souza

de Araújo Pereira

Nakatani

Bachion

. Prevalence and intensity of chronic painand self-perceived health among elderly people: a population-based study, Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem . 2014;22(4):662–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3591.2465

43.

Rubin

Zimmer

. Pain and self-assessed health: does the association vary by age? Social Science and Medicine . 2015;130:259–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.02.024

44.

Perruccio

Power

Badley

. Arthritis onset and worsening self-rated health: a longitudinal evaluation of the role of pain and activity limitations, Arthritis Care and Research . 2005;53(4):571–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.21317