1 Department of Clinical Medicine - Occupational Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University2 Department of Public Health - Institute of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Department of Public Health, Health, Aarhus University3 Studienævnene på HE - Board of Studies, Health Science, Studienævnene på HE, Health, Aarhus University4 Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University5 Department of Clinical Medicine - Arbejdsmedicinsk klinik, Herning, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University6 Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.7 Research Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Region Southern Denmark, Denmark.8 Arbejdsmedicinsk Klinik, NBG, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus University9 Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Capital Region, Denmark.10 Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Capital Region, Denmark.11 Department of Clinical Medicine - Occupational Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University12 Department of Public Health - Institute of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Department of Public Health, Health, Aarhus University13 Department of Clinical Medicine - Arbejdsmedicinsk klinik, Herning, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University
OBJECTIVES: Individual response style, mood, expectations, and health status may affect reporting of the psychosocial work environment, and bias associations with outcomes. Reporting bias may be avoided by aggregating individual responses, ideally preserving exposure contrast. In this study, we examined the degree of exposure contrast yielded by different grouping strategies. METHOD: In 2007, we enrolled 4489 public employees from Aarhus, Denmark in the PRISME-cohort, with follow-up in 2009. From pay-roll registers we grouped workers at 2 organisational levels: department (n = 22) and work unit (n = 751), and 3 occupational levels: sector (n = 7), profession (n = 46), and job title (n = 77). Exposures, calculated as means of items scored on 5-point Likert scales, included psychological demands, decision latitude, social support, effort, reward, and procedural and relational justice. To assess variance components, we fitted linear mixed effect models with exposures as dependent variables, and id and grouping variables as random effects. Results are reported as the contrast in mean exposure levels e.g. between-group variance/ (between-group variance +within-group variance). RESULTS: Within each hierarchy contrasts rose with increasing group-level detail. Grouping by either work unit (wu) or by job title (jt) contrasts were: psychological demands: 0.28(wu); 0.26(jt), decision latitude: 0.24(wu); 0.32(jt), social support: 0.24(wu); 0.06(jt), effort: 0.23(wu); 0.16(jt), reward: 0.19(wu); 0.12(jt), procedural justice: 0.24(wu); 0.14(jt), and relational justice: 0.29(wu); 0.04(jt). CONCLUSIONS: Grouping by work unit gave the most consistent contrasts (0.19-0.29), while grouping by job title varied considerably (0.04-0.32). These preliminary findings suggest that grouping by work unit provided better exposure contrasts than grouping by job title for all exposures, but decision latitude.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2014, Vol 71 Suppl 1, p. 1-2