Kataoka Aoi, Kikuchi Hiroyuki, Odagiri Yuko, Ohya Yumiko, Nakanishi Yutaka, Shimomitsu Teruichi, Inoue Shigeru
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Tokyo Medical University.
Department of Medical Statistics, Research and Development Center, Osaka Medical College.
Sangyo Eiseigaku Zasshi. 2021 Mar 25;63(2):53-62. doi: 10.1539/sangyoeisei.2020-017-B. Epub 2020 Aug 24.
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.
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.
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).
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，公司被要求实施“压力检查计划”以预防员工的心理健康问题。为识别“高压力”员工，推荐使用简易工作压力问卷（BJSQ）。根据政府发布的压力检查计划手册，高压力可通过两个标准来定义，即“求和法”（简单地将每个量表的分数相加）或“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，我们检查了在“压力检查计划”数据上使用这两个标准所得到结果的差异。
我们使用了2016年进行压力检查的117家公司和组织中71422名员工的数据。通过同时应用这两个标准来计算高压力的患病率，并使用卡方检验来比较高压力员工的比例。随后，我们将参与者分为以下四组并计算每组的比例：A组被定义为两个标准均判定为高压力；B组仅通过求和法判定为高压力；C组仅通过分数转换法判定为高压力；D组两个标准均未判定为高压力。我们使用Kruskal-Wallis检验比较四组之间压力反应的平均值，并使用Bonferroni方法进一步比较B组和C组之间的平均值。
参与者的平均年龄为43.7±11.1岁，男性占66.8%。使用求和法判定为高压力的比例为11.7%，使用分数转换法判定为高压力的比例为13.2%；因此，使用分数转换法时高压力员工的比例显著更高（p<.001）。B组的身体压力反应更高；然而，C组的活力缺乏、易怒、疲劳和抑郁程度更高（p<.01）。
与求和法相比，使用转换法观察到的高压力员工多1.5%，这一结果在个人因素和与就业相关的因素方面相似。此外，当求和法中身体压力反应的分数更高时，员工更有可能被判定为“高压力”。今后，在讨论高压力比例时，考虑应用哪种标准很重要。需要进一步研究以检查哪种标准能预测健康障碍。
