Work conditions as predictors of Swedish occupational therapists’ occupational balance

Figures & data

Table 1. The dimensions of the QPS-mismatch and their definitions.

Workload	Evenly distributed; A reasonable amount to do; few disruptive interruptions; the demands of work do not affect family life; work with clients; complaints from clients
Control	Clearly defined goals; a defined area of responsibility; ability to perform tasks in a way that suits you; sufficient resources; compatible requirements; being able to influence the amount of work, the pace of work, and important decisions
Reward	Appreciation; money, and encouragement
Community	Getting help and support from co-workers and managers; co-workers and managers listen to problems related to work; a lack of disruptive conflicts; a stress-free relationship with the manager and enough communication in the workplace
Justice	Having someone who looks after one’s interests in the workplace; the manager supporting the development of skills; the manager tackling problems when they arise; a fair distribution of work; good care; interest in the health and well-being of employees
Values	Personal values congruent with the workplace’s values; the employees recommend the workplace; confidence in the management’s ability

Table 2. Characteristics of the participants (n = 1835).

	n (%)
Gender
Men	95 (5)
Women	1732 (95)
Living with someone
Yes	1479 (80)
No	349 (20)
Children living at home
Yes	1004 (81)
No	349 (19)
Age groups
21–30	222 (12)
31–40	427 (24)
41–50	478 (26)
51–60	541 (30)
61–70	143 (8)
Years of professional experience
≤17 years	901 (50)
≥18 years	915 (50)
Working hours
≤75% of full–time (40 h a week)	182 (10)
>75% (40 h a week)	1569 (90)
Satisfactory financial situation
Yes	874 (48)
No	957 (52)
Physical activity
Mainly sedentary	230 (13)
More active	1602 (87)

Table 3. Organizational and social work environmental conditions at baseline (n = 1835).

	Mean
Workload (1–5)	3.2
Control (1–5)	3.5
Reward (1–5)	2.6
Community (1–5)	3.9
Justice (1–5)	3.3
Values (1–5)	3.5

Table 4. Associations between organizational and social work environmental conditions, sociodemographic characteristics at baseline, and occupational balance at follow-up (simple logistic regression) (n = 1835).

	OR (95% CI) p-value	p-Value
Reasonable workload	2.32 (2.01–2.68)	<0.001
High control	2.36 (2.00–2.79)	<0.001
High reward	1.37 (1.25–1.51)	<0.001
High sense of community	1.77 (1.54–2.05)	<0.001
High justice	1.50 (1.34–1.68)	<0.001
Value congruence	1.53 (1.35–1.73)	<0.001
Men (vs. women)	1.57 (1.04–2.36)	0.031
Living with someone (vs. single)	1.22 (0.98–1.53)	0.031
No children living at home (vs. children living at home)	1.32 (1.11–1,58)	0.002
Age groups (from younger to older)	0.99 (0.92–1.07)	0.882
Working hours (>75 % vs. <75% of 40 h a week)	1.25 (0.93–1.68)	0.137
Years of professional experience (≤17 years vs. ≥18 years)	1.09 (0.91–1.30)	0.353
Satisfactory financial situation (vs not)	1.71 (1.43–2.05)	<0.001
Physically active (vs. mainly sedentary)	1.95 (1.48–2.56)	<0.001

Table 5. Organizational and social work environmental conditions, and sociodemographic factors at baseline, predicting high occupational balance at follow up (n = 1835).

	Step 1 unadjusted OR (95% CI)	Step 2 adjusted OR (95% CI)
Reasonable workload	1.87 (1.57–2.23)	1.78 (1.48–2.14)
High control	1.29 (1.01–1.64)	1.31 (1.02–1.70)
High reward	1.24 (1.09–1.42)	1.21 (1.06–1.38)
High sense of community	1.22 (0.97–1.51)	1.21 (0.96–1.53)
High justice	0.85 (0.69–1.05)	0.83 (0.67–1.04)
Value congruence	1.06 (.0.89–1.26)	1.03 (0.86–1.24)
Men (vs. women)		1.53 (0.96–2.44)
Living with someone (vs. single)		1.20 (0.92–1.57)
No children living at home (vs. children living at home)		1.37 (1.11–1.69)
Satisfactory financial situation (vs not)		1.32 (1.07–1.62)
Physically active (vs mainly sedentary)		1.80 (1.32–2.47)

The figures in bold are statistically significant.

Data availability statement

The data underlying this article will be shared upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.