» Articles » PMID: 22953229

European Approaches to Work-related Stress: a Critical Review on Risk Evaluation

Overview
Journal Saf Health Work
Date 2012 Sep 7
PMID 22953229
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In recent years, various international organizations have raised awareness regarding psychosocial risks and work-related stress. European stakeholders have also taken action on these issues by producing important documents, such as position papers and government regulations, which are reviewed in this article. In particular, 4 European models that have been developed for the assessment and management of work-related stress are considered here. Although important advances have been made in the understanding of work-related stress, there are still gaps in the translation of this knowledge into effective practice at the enterprise level. There are additional problems regarding the methodology in the evaluation of work-related stress. The European models described in this article are based on holistic, global and participatory approaches, where the active role of and involvement of workers are always emphasized. The limitations of these models are in the lack of clarity on preventive intervention and, for two of them, the lack of instrument standardization for risk evaluation. The comparison among the European models to approach work-related stress, although with limitations and socio-cultural differences, offers the possibility for the development of a social dialogue that is important in defining the correct and practical methodology for work stress evaluation and prevention.

Citing Articles

Development and Validation of a Resilience Skills Questionnaire for Health Sector Professionals Based on Social Cognitive Theory.

Akbari M, Mokarami H, Cousins R, Rahimi Taghanaki C, Kaveh M, Jahangiri M Biomed Res Int. 2024; 2024:5660620.

PMID: 38221911 PMC: 10787653. DOI: 10.1155/2024/5660620.


Job Stress and Mental Well-Being among Working Men and Women in Europe: The Mediating Role of Social Support.

Mensah A Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(5).

PMID: 33802439 PMC: 7967617. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18052494.


The prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Salari N, Khazaie H, Hosseinian-Far A, Khaledi-Paveh B, Kazeminia M, Mohammadi M Hum Resour Health. 2020; 18(1):100.

PMID: 33334335 PMC: 7745176. DOI: 10.1186/s12960-020-00544-1.


Comparability of Self-Ratings and Observer Ratings in Occupational Psychosocial Risk Assessments: Is There Agreement?.

Schneider I, Madler M, Lang J Biomed Res Int. 2019; 2019:8382160.

PMID: 31309118 PMC: 6594325. DOI: 10.1155/2019/8382160.


Consideration of psychosocial factors in workplace risk assessments: findings from a company survey in Germany.

Beck D, Lenhardt U Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019; 92(3):435-451.

PMID: 30756179 PMC: 6420464. DOI: 10.1007/s00420-019-01416-5.


References
1.
Leka S, Kortum E . A European framework to address psychosocial hazards. J Occup Health. 2008; 50(3):294-6. DOI: 10.1539/joh.m6004. View

2.
Albini E, Zoni S, Parrinello G, Benedetti L, Lucchini R . An integrated model for the assessment of stress-related risk factors in health care professionals. Ind Health. 2010; 49(1):15-23. DOI: 10.2486/indhealth.ms948. View

3.
Iavicoli S, Natali E, Deitinger P, Rondinone B, Ertel M, Jain A . Occupational health and safety policy and psychosocial risks in Europe: the role of stakeholders' perceptions. Health Policy. 2010; 101(1):87-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.08.005. View

4.
Hurrell Jr J, Nelson D, Simmons B . Measuring job stressors and strains: where we have been, where we are, and where we need to go. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998; 3(4):368-89. DOI: 10.1037//1076-8998.3.4.368. View