Association between psychosocial work characteristics and health functioning in American women: prospective study
BMJ 2000; 320 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7247.1432 (Published 27 May 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;320:1432
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I'm not sure how believable Professor Ichiro Kawachi is. When his
highly publicized study on environmental tobacco smoke and heart disease
risk among nonsmokers was published, he touted his finding of "high risk"
from exposure to ETS in the workplace: "The finding of high risk
associated with workplace smoke is a very important one, Kawachi
emphasizes." (American Heart Association press release, May 20, 1997,
"Steady exposure to 'passive' smoke nearly doubles risk of heart attack,
death for women, study shows")
A year later he more accurately described his ETS/workplace finding
as "suggestive" of an elevated risk "although the estimate was not
statistically significant." (Cardiologia, 1998;43(7):667-675, "Passive
smoking and coronary heart disease," Ichiro Kawachi)
Why would Professor Kawachi tell the media one thing (a "high risk")
when in fact he acknowledges something altogether different in his
Cardiologia article that received no U.S. media coverage at all?
Martha Perske
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is highly commendable that researchers have studied the effects of
low job control, high demands, and low social support on female nurses. An
important and ground-breaking study, I'm sure, but no surprise to the
participants, I am also sure!
But a major portion of women do not work as nurses. They work in
offices as clerks, secretaries, and receptionists. I have worked in
offices for over 16 years as a clerk, secretary/administrative assistant
to VPs, and receptionist and have endured all of the same stress, due to
the same environment factors studied in the nurse report.
Please study the occupations of office clerk, secretary,
administrative assistant, and receptionist, so that maybe the bosses will
listen!!
Thank you.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Workplace stress is widespread
I think that this kind of study is extremely valuable and should be
carried out in other kinds of workplaces. I believe that studies of
government workers in Britain have shown similar health effects and the
effects followed a gradient--the lowest control jobs had the highest
stress levels and the highest rates of illness for the workers and so on
up to the highest ranks, where workers enjoyed good health.
Personally, I was a worker for several years in a government
(Ontario) office. The demand in terms of workload was extremely high, the
control was zero. I strongly suspect that government workers everywhere
experience the highest levels of stress, especially due to cut-backs
during the 1990s. Yet, no one seems to be concerned about the health of
government workers.
I experienced a severe back problem (herniated disc) and after two
operations, I find myself permanently disabled and suffering chronic pain,
muscle spasms, and muscle cramps. The word must get out about the
negative health effects of workplaces that give employees little control
over their work. We will otherwise experience a health care crisis in
most Western countries.
Employers of all kinds--private and public sector--must be encouraged
to make these changes, which will also, I suspect improve productivity,
cut absenteeism and encourage workers to do their best work. We must
finally rid ourselves of the philosophy of "Scientific Management"
promoted by Taylor in the 1910s and move on to a new, enlightened century.
Competing interests: No competing interests