978

  0.671   0.838 aReversed scales, meaning that high scale scores represent low levels of the work condition # P < 0.10, * P < 0.05 Mean and standard deviation (SD) of the psychosocial work conditions on a score range of 0 (low) to 100 (high), with exception of the scales job autonomy, decision latitude, supervisor support and co-worker support which had reversed scores (0 = high and 100 = low). The table also shows the reference scores for the Dutch financial sector. The results of multiple linear regression analysis using the model ln(y) = a + b 1 x 1 + b 2 x 2 +….. + b i x i are presented in regression coefficients (b) with their standard errors (SE) adjusted for earlier sick-leave and psychological distress. The R 2 value is a measure of the proportion of explained variety in ARS-1620 sickness absence days The associations C59 mw between the

psychosocial work conditions and sickness absence days are also presented in Table 2. The total population decision authority (P = 0.04) and co-worker support (P = 0.03) were positively related to the number of sickness absence days. Because these scales had reversed scores, this meant that the higher decision authority and higher co-worker support were associated with fewer sickness absence days. Role clarity was negatively related (P = 0.04) to the number of sickness absence days. Gender was significantly associated with the number of sickness absence days; therefore we stratified the results by gender. In men, the decision

authority was associated with the number of sickness absence days, though marginally significant (P = 0.05). Job insecurity was non-significantly associated (P = 0.06) with the number of absence PD173074 nmr days in men. In women, the role clarity was negatively associated (P = 0.03) with the number of sickness absence days during follow-up. Psychosocial work conditions and sickness absence episodes Table 3 shows the associations between psychosocial work conditions, and the number of short and long episodes of sickness absence. We found significant gender differences and the number of long sickness absence episodes were higher with increasing age [rate ratio (RR) = 1.38; P = 0.02]. most Therefore, we chose to stratify the results by gender and adjust for age in the analyses. Table 3 Associations between psychosocial work conditions and the number of sickness absence episodes Psychosocial work condition Total population Men Women Short episodes RR (95% CI) Long episodes RR (95% CI) Short episodes RR (95% CI) Long episodes RR (95% CI) Short episodes RR (95% CI) Long episodes RR (95% CI) Gender 0.83 (0.66–1.05) 0.50 (0.30–0.85)*         Age 0.87 (0.76–1.00)# 1.38 (1.05–1.82)* 0.81 (0.63–1.03) 1.44 (0.73–2.78) 0.93 (0.78–1.10) 1.46 (1.06–2.01)* Work pace 0.93 (0.85–1.01)# 1.04 (0.89–1.21) 0.97 (0.81–1.16) 1.31 (0.83–2.08) 0.89 (0.81–0.98)* 0.97 (0.80–1.18) Emotional demands 0.94 (0.85–1.05) 1.18 (0.96–1.44) 0.99 (0.82–1.21) 0.93 (0.55–1.57) 0.94 (0.83–1.06) 1.17 (0.93–1.49) Psychological workload 1.