APEX 2012 Work Health Study · What is new in the 2012 Sd?Study? Work and Health Survey •...

APEX 2012 Work & Health StudyLouise Lemyre, Ph.D., FRSC , Wayne Corneil, Sc.D.Leah Simpkins Ph D (c) & Celine Pinsent Ph DLeah Simpkins, Ph.D. (c) & Celine Pinsent, Ph.D.

GAP‐Santé Research UnitS h l f P h l F lt f S i l S iSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences

Institute of Population HealthUniversity of Ottawa

2012 

Wh i i h 2012 S d ?What is new in the 2012 Study?Work and Health Survey• GAP‐Santé & APEX have been monitoring the organizational 

environment and health of executives for 16 years• 4th edition – 2012 completed during October & November • Convergence of health research and organizational sciences inConvergence of health research and organizational sciences in 

assessing risks• Added measures of: 

Knowledge and Impact of Previous APEX Study Results– Knowledge and Impact of Previous APEX Study Results– Presenteeism– Physical Activity

Civility– Civility 

• Update measures of: Sick leave, absenteeism, Organizational Flexibility, Fairness, Harassment, Wellbeing and Resiliency, Work Engagement, Intent to Leave Chronic Health MedicationsLeave, Chronic Health, Medications 

MethodologyMethodology• APEX study conducted by an independent group of researchers (University‐based)• Peer‐reviewed by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council  and international bodies• Design inspired by the UK Whitehall Study as the gold‐standard in population health research• Evidence‐based using validated standardized scales and instruments from peer‐reviewed literature • Repeated measures 1997 – 2002 ‐ 2007 ‐ 2012 to track trends• University of Ottawa (Ethics approval)

• In 2012: – 2314 executives responded 

35% t– 35%  response rate – margin of error is plus or minus 1.6%, 99 times out of 100.– provides robust statistical analyses and high confidence levels– Core and Non‐Core organizations

• APEX survey data rely on Executives at work and do not include Executives on sick leave or long‐term disability; hence show a ‘Healthy Worker Effect’, yielding to a lower prevalence of problems

Profile of RespondentsProfile of Respondents

REGION Public Service

Survey respondents 50

60Respondents by level

NCR 74 % 73 %

Atlantic 4 %  5 %20

30

40

t a t c % 5 %

Quebec 5 % 5 %

Ont 5 % 5 %

Prairies 5 % 5 %0

10

20

EX1 EX2 EX3 EX4 EX5

G bli S i S

Prairies 5 % 5 %

Pacific 3 %  4 %

Outside Canada 4 % 3 %

EX1 EX2 EX3 EX4 EX5

TBS 2012 population dataSurvey participants

GENDER Public Service Survey respondents 

Male 55 % 51 %

Female 45 % 49 %Female  45 % 49 %

Individual Health OutcomesIndividual Health Outcomes• Reduced self rated health status (most reliable predictor ( p

of mortality)

• No change in cardiovascular and coronary heart disease (1 in 5 EX’s)disease (1 in 5 EX s) 

• Double the rate for diagnosed mental health disorders (depression and anxiety disorders)

• Increased use of medications (mostly psychotropics)

• Increases in musculoskeletal problems • Decreased rates of respiratory illnesses(results significant p<.001)

Lemyre et al, May 2013

Individual Risk FactorsIndividual Risk Factors

Factors that increase risks: Factors that decrease risks:ac o s a c ease s s• Poor sleep patterns (9.4% < 6 

hours)

ac o s a dec ease s s• Fewer smokers• More moderate drinkers

• Increased BMI levels (43% > BMI 30)

• Lack of physical fitness • Increased use of 

counseling servicesp yactivity on regular basis (necessary but not ffi i t)sufficient)

• Unchanged levels for resilience and well‐beingresilience and well being

Lemyre et al, May 2013

Individual risk factors VS work  risk factors

For cardiovascular diseases:

Obesity contributes an increase of 9% in the risk

Effort / Reward Imbalance contributes an increased in risk 30 times greater than the one from obesityin risk 30 times greater than the one from obesity

Logistic regression p < .001

Lemyre et al, May 2013

Organizational Health OutcomesOrganizational Health Outcomes• Work satisfaction – trending up overall –Work satisfaction  trending up overall however, concerned with job insecurity

• Commitment trending down• Commitment – trending down• Engagement – trending down• Burnout – trending up, 1 in 4 EX’s at severe 

levels• Absenteeism and Presenteeism (going to work ill) –

trending up, reduced productivityg p, p y

Lemyre et al, May 2013

Harassment Core Separate Agencies

Harassment rates 22% 16%(p < 0.05).

Harassment increases the risk for: h lth i d i d di di• more health issues: depression and cardiac diseases

• higher absenteeism• lower work satisfaction• lower engagement• lower engagement

Harassment  Increased by Reduced by 

Effort Reward Imbalance (β= 5.08) Fairness(β= .708)

Logistic Regression p < 001

(β )Lack of respect (β= 3.54)Non‐ adaptive organization (β= 1.57)Work hours (β= 1.03)

(β )

Logistic Regression p < .001

Lemyre et al, May 2013

BurnoutBurnout

Increased by: Reduced by:Increased by:In order of significance:

Reduced by:In order of significance:

• Psychological Stress (β= .43)• Skill underutilization (β= .19)

• Adaptive organization (β= .10)• Colleague support  (β= .09)

• Lack of civility (β= .12)• Role conflict  (β= .10)• Role ambiguity (β= .08)

Regression p < .001Lemyre et al, May 2013

ResilienceResilience

Increased by: Reduced by:Increased by:In order of significance:

Reduced by:In order of significance:

• Colleague support (β= .09)• Control (β= .08)

• Stress (β= .67)• Skill underutilization (β= .18)• Work load (β= .10)• ERI (β= .10)• Role ambiguity (β= .08)• Lack of respect (β= .09)

Regression p < .001

Lemyre et al, May 2013

Addressing Systemic DifferencesAddressing Systemic DifferencesLarge and small non‐core agencies:a ge a d s a o co e age c es:• More control• Less intragroup conflictLess intragroup conflict• Greater well being• More engagementMore engagement• Less turnover• Less burnoutLess burnout• Fewer work hours, less travel time, 10% fewer working more than 55 hoursworking more than 55 hours

Tests for significance p < .05Lemyre et al, May 2013

How to increase engagement and commitment while reducing turnover and presenteeism

Focus on:l• Greater control

• Fairness• Supervisor support• Colleague support

• Collaboration• Adaptive flexible organizationAdaptive flexible organization

Correlation matrix p <.001

Lemyre et al, May 2013

P h l i l H lth d S f t i thPsychological Health and Safety in the Workplace – a National Standard of Canada 

AN/CSA‐Z1003‐13/BNQ 9700‐803/2013 

• Voluntary standard provides employers with a methodology that will lead to measurable and sustainable improvements in ppsychological health and safety

• Developed jointly by the Canadian Standards Association and the Bureau de Normalization du Quebec, contracted by Mental Health Commission of Canada, funded by HRSDCMental Health Commission of Canada, funded by HRSDC

Lemyre et al, May 2013

Achilles Heel / Talon d’AchilleAchilles Heel / Talon dAchille

Loneliness at the topl dSolitude au sommet

Work load / Charge de travailWork load / Charge de travail

Health / SantéHealth / Santé

Organizational Culture l llCulture organisationnelle

Myths of Multi‐tasking h d l i kiLes mythes de Multi‐tasking

Key MessagesKey Messages

• Stress significantly  • Recognition –must be g yhigher

• Individual health b

gday to day, not just awards / bonuses

bcontinues to be significantly impacted

• Reduced sense of

• Fairness – must be visible and consistent 

• Respectful and civil• Reduced sense of support from others

• Organizational 

• Respectful and civil workplace at all levels

• Meaningful support goutcomes significantly affected

g ppfrom colleagues & supervisors

Lemyre et al, May 2013