Gu G Z, Wu H, Yu S F, Zhou W H, Li F R, Shao J Z, Xue H C, Han S H, Guo J S
Henan Provincial Institute for Occupational Health, Zhengzhou 450052, China.
Zhongyuan Oilfield Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Puyang 457006, China.
Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2020 Jul 20;38(7):495-499. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn121094-20190709-00276.
To explore the relationship between sleep quality and occupational stress in field gas recovery workers. In October 2018, cluster sampling method was adopted to conduct cross-sectional survey on 1726 field workers in a gas production oilfield. The individual characteristics, occupational stress factors, stress regulation factors, stress response and sleep quality, social support and coping strategies were evaluated by occupational stress measurement tools and job content questionnaire. Mann Whitney test and Kruskal Wallis test were used to compare sleep quality scores between the groups. Spearman rank correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between sleep quality and occupational stress, and logistic regression analysis was used to analyze multiple factors. There were significant differences in sleep quality scores among different positions, gender, marital status, age, length of service, smoking and drinking (<0.05) . There were no significant differences in sleep quality scores between different education levels and work shift groups (>0.05) . Spearman rank correlation analysis showed that sleep quality score was negatively correlated with job satisfaction, reward, job stability, promotion opportunity, positive emotion, respect, self-esteem, control strategy, support strategy and self-efficacy score (=-0.361, -0.311, -0.238, -0.261, -0.248, -0.212, -0.139, -0.188, -0.152, -0.226, <0.01) , and was positively correlated with social support, giving, daily tension, negative emotion, work monotony and depression symptom (=0.312, 0.279, 0.547, 0.493, 0.429, 0.599, <0.01) . Compared with the high sleep quality score group, the middle and low sleep quality score groups had lower giving, work monotony, daily tension, depressive symptoms, negative emotions and social support (<0.01) , while the scores of respect, reward, job satisfaction, positive emotion, self-efficacy, job stability, promotion opportunity, control strategy and support strategy were higher (<0.01) . Multiple depressive symptoms, high daily tension, high negative emotion and high work monotony were the risk factors for sleep disorders (=3.417, 2.659, 2.913, 1.543) . Depressive symptoms, daily tension and negative emotion have great influence on sleep quality of field gas recovery workers.
探讨气田采气工人睡眠质量与职业压力之间的关系。2018年10月,采用整群抽样方法对某采气油田的1726名野外作业人员进行横断面调查。通过职业压力测量工具和工作内容问卷对个体特征、职业压力因素、压力调节因素、压力反应和睡眠质量、社会支持及应对策略进行评估。采用Mann Whitney检验和Kruskal Wallis检验比较各组间睡眠质量得分。采用Spearman等级相关分析睡眠质量与职业压力之间的相关性,采用logistic回归分析多因素。不同岗位、性别、婚姻状况、年龄、工龄、吸烟和饮酒情况的睡眠质量得分存在显著差异(<0.05)。不同文化程度和工作班次组的睡眠质量得分无显著差异(>0.05)。Spearman等级相关分析显示,睡眠质量得分与工作满意度、奖励、工作稳定性、晋升机会、积极情绪、尊重、自尊、控制策略、支持策略和自我效能感得分呈负相关(=-0.361、-0.311、-0.238、-0.261、-0.248、-0.212、-0.139、-0.188、-0.152、-0.226,<0.01),与社会支持、给予、日常紧张、消极情绪、工作单调性和抑郁症状呈正相关(=0.312、0.279、0.547、0.493、0.429、0.599,<0.01)。与睡眠质量得分高的组相比,睡眠质量得分中低的组给予、工作单调性、日常紧张、抑郁症状、消极情绪和社会支持较低(<0.01),而尊重、奖励、工作满意度、积极情绪、自我效能感、工作稳定性、晋升机会、控制策略和支持策略得分较高(<0.01)。多种抑郁症状、高日常紧张、高消极情绪和高工作单调性是睡眠障碍的危险因素(=3.417、2.659、2.913、1.543)。抑郁症状、日常紧张和消极情绪对气田采气工人的睡眠质量有很大影响。