HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lindberg, P Articles by Vingård, E Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lindberg, P Articles by Vingård, E

Promoting excellent work ability and preventing poor work ability: the same determinants? Results from the Swedish HAKuL study

¹ Section for Personal Injury Prevention, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
² Section of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala University, Sweden
³ Division of Cardiovascular Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
⁴ Centre of Public Health, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
MrP Lindberg
Section for Personal Injury Prevention, Karolinska Institutet, Box 12718, SE-112 94 Stockholm, Sweden; per.lindberg{at}ki.se

Aim: Health has been described as a continuum between the two poles of excellent health and ill health. Research has so far focused on the negative pole, leaving knowledge about the positive pole vague. With a main focus on working life, the authors aim was to identify determinants promoting excellent work ability and determinants preventing poor work ability.

Methods: 5638 (73% answering rate) employees in the public sector in Sweden answered a questionnaire both at baseline and at follow up 18 months later. The employees were divided into three groups based on sick leave at follow up: excellent work ability (13%), poor work ability (15%), and a middle group (72%). Self reported sociodemographic data, lifestyle data, and working life exposures at baseline were fitted into logistic regression models to determine which factors, if any, promoted excellent work ability or protected against poor work ability.

Results: Some determinants were mutual, but more than half of the determinants in the final model were associated solely with promoting excellent work ability or preventing poor work ability, thus creating different patterns of associations. Promotion of excellent work ability seemed more dependent on physical factors, clear work tasks, and positive feedback, while prevention of poor work ability seemed more dependent on job security and psychosocial factors.

Conclusions: This explorative longitudinal study showed slightly different patterns of determinants promoting excellent work ability and preventing poor work ability. As most of the identified determinants are amenable to influence, our results open up the possibility of interventions for promoting excellent work ability and preventing poor work ability.

Keywords: health promotion; work ability; sick leave; working life; follow up

This article has been cited by other articles:

				U.-B. Eriksson, B. Starrin, and S. Janson Long-Term Sickness Absence Due to Burnout: Absentees' Experiences Qual Health Res, May 1, 2008; 18(5): 620 - 632. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Loomis Work in brief Occup. Environ. Med., February 1, 2006; 63(2): 79 - 79. [Full Text] [PDF]