Body mass index and psychosocial job quality: An analysis of working Australians from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey

ABSTRACT

The study investigated the association between psychosocial job quality and body mass index (BMI) by sex. Regression models examining potential differences in the job stressor-BMI relationship between men and women were conducted using longitudinal data from working Australians and a psychosocial job stressor index. There was strong evidence of an association between psychosocial job stressors and BMI for females but not males. Compared with no psychosocial job stressors, 1 adversity was associated with 0.13 kg/m2 (95% CI: −0.42–0.67); 2 adversities were associated with 0.53 kg/m2 (−0.00–1.07); and 3 or more adversities were associated with 0.87 kg/m2 (0.30–1.45) increase in mean BMI for females. Females were found to have on average 0.32 kg/m2 (0.16–0.49) increase in BMI per increase in psychosocial job stressor. Psychosocial job stressors appear to have an adverse effect on women's weight.

Keywords:

• Body mass index
• employees
• epidemiology
• psychosocial job stressors

Disclosure

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The data used in this study were extracted using PanelWhiz. PanelWhiz (http://www.PanelWhiz.eu) was written by Dr John P. Haisken-DeNew ([email protected]). This study uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey. The HILDA project was initiated and is funded by the Australian Government Department of Social Services (DSS) and is managed by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (Melbourne Institute). The findings and views reported in this article, however, are those of the authors and should not be attributed to either DSS or the Melbourne Institute.