We examined the impact of exposure to workplace risks, controlling for other job and individual characteristics, on three outcomes: self-rated poor health, mental distress measured on the basis of the WHO 5-item scale, and injury experienced in the last year. None of these indicators is linked specifically to work; the work- relatedness could not be explored as the question wording related to any illness or injury. The advantage of this approach is that it avoids any potential bias due to differences in attribution of illness or distress to working conditions. Such biases may be linked to level of education and knowledge of the impact of the impact of work on health and wellbeing. This logic may have less merit in case of injury, because it is often clearer where the injury occurred, but it is not possible to exclude non-work injuries given the way the question is asked in the 2010 EWCS.
In Chapter 4 we noted that there appear to be differences between countries and cultures in the thresholds adopted, such that the percentages reporting poor health or injury are higher in some countries than would be suggested by other indicators of population health and injury rates. As a result, we caution against drawing conclusions about the differences between countries in the levels of
17 Violence and harassment need not be from supervisors, managers or co-workers but might come from members of
health, injury or mental distress. Instead, we focus on the associations between these outcomes and characteristics of jobs and workers, particularly in the association with exposure to the different types of workplace risk.
The strongest associations in the case of self-rated poor health are by age of the worker and exposure to workplace risks. Self-rated poor health is more often reported by older workers, and among those exposed to physical risk, physically demanding work and psycho-social risk. The increase in the percentage reporting poor health between those with the lowest and the highest level of exposure to these risks was five percentage points in the case of physical risk, 22 percentage points in the case of physically demanding work and 29 percentage points in the case of psycho-social risks. These associations are similar in Ireland to other countries.
The second outcome, mental distress was measured on a ten-point scale and was also influenced by both characteristics of the job (those exposed to workplace risks, trainees and those in unskilled occupations or working long hours) and of the worker (higher among older workers and women). The level of mental distress was considerably higher in the context of exposure to psycho-social workplace risks (by 1.2 points on the ten point scale), as we might expect, but was also increased where the worker was exposed to chemical/biological risk (by 0.3 points) or physically demanding work (by 0.5 points).
There were some differences between Ireland and the European average in the association between mental distress and job or worker characteristics. The level of mental distress is lower than elsewhere among Irish workers exposed to physical risk; those over age 55 and those with lower levels of education. Levels are higher than in other countries among those in the semi-state sector. Some of these patterns may reflect country differences in the selection into certain jobs (such as those involving physical risk) or country differences in early retirement rates among workers experiencing mental distress. The impact of the recession and austerity measures on funding for NGOs and semi-state organisations in Ireland may also have contributed to increasing worker stress in these sectors. The third outcome was injury. The risk of injury was higher among males, younger workers and also among trainees, those working in the agriculture, forestry or fishing sector and those working in craft and related trades occupations. The differences by gender, age and sector were consistent with findings for Ireland based on an analysis of the Quarterly National Household Survey Health and Safety module (Russell et al., 2015). The risk of injury was
higher among those exposed to each kind of workplace risk. The gaps between those with the highest and lowest levels of exposure were 6 percentage points for physical risk, 9 percentage points for chemical/biological risk; 12 percentage points for physically demanding work and 27 percentage points for those exposed to psycho-social risk. The patterns were generally similar in Ireland to other countries. The only exception was the Irish workers with no formal contract did not have a higher risk of injury than permanent employees as was found in Europe generally.
Because of differences in measurement between 2005 and 2010, we did not examine changes over time in the risk of illness, mental distress or injury. Nevertheless, as noted above, we were able to examine change over time in the level of exposure to workplace risks (physical, chemical/biological, physical demand and psycho-social). Our findings pointed to a reduction in exposure to psycho-social risks, one of the aspects of the workplace which was most strongly associated to negative outcomes for workers.