h2. Spotlight on article published in
h2. "+Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy+":http://www.ifau.se/en/Research/Publications/Working-papers/2012/The-relationship-between-psychosocial-work-factors-employee-health-and-organisational-production--a-systematic-review/
_IBI Spotlights call attention to important health and productivity findings from peer-reviewed work by external researchers. Unless otherwise stated, the authors are not affiliated with IBI, nor was the research executed on IBI’s behalf. IBI members are encouraged to obtain the original articles from the copyright holder._
h2. What is the Issue?
How do workplace psychosocial factors such as job demands, job control, social support, and relations with management and co-workers influence performance and productivity indirectly through employee health?
h2. What are the findings/solutions?
* There is limited evidence that psychosocial work factors influence self- or supervisor-rated performance as a function of employee health.
* The finding owes largely to an absence of high-quality studies (e.g., randomized or matched studies instead of cross-sectional), but also to the variety of ways in which health, performance and psychosocial factors are measured.
* The most consistent evidence indicated that psychosocial factors influenced musculoskeletal pain, which impacted performance in turn.
h2. Journal Citation
Karlsson, M.K., Björklund C. and Jensen I. (2012). The Relationship Between Psychosocial Work Factors, Employee Health, and Organisational Production – A Systematic Review. Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy: Working Paper 2012:8.
h2. Objectives
To understand if there is a relationship between psychosocial work factors and performance and productivity, and if so, is it mediated by health.
h2. Method
A systematic review of 17 studies that measured psychosocial work factors, health and either job-performance (self- or supervisor-rated) or productivity (presenteeism or sickness absence). Each study’s quality was rated as strong, moderate or weak based on established criteria. The body of evidence was rated as (a) moderate if at least one study was of strong quality and at least two studies were of moderate quality, (b) limited if at least two studies were of moderate quality and at least five of weak quality, or ( c ) no evidence if the criteria above are not met minimally.
h2. Results
The existing research provided limited evidence that psychosocial factors influence performance as a function of their effect on employee health.
h2. Conclusion
More high-quality, longitudinal studies using consistent measures of psychosocial work factors and productivity are required to make claims about the work environment health, and productivity.