4.4 Article

Work Hours and Self rated Health of Hospital Doctors in Norway and Germany. A comparative study on national samples

Journal

BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-40

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The relationship between extended work hours and health is well documented among hospital doctors, but the effect of national differences in work hours on health is unexplored. The study examines the relationship between work hours and self rated health in two national samples of hospital doctors. Methods: The study population consisted of representative samples of 1,260 German and 562 Norwegian hospital doctors aged 25-65 years (N = 1,822) who received postal questionnaires in 2006 (Germany) and 2008 (Norway). The questionnaires contained items on demography, work hours (number of hours per workday and on-call per month) and self rated subjective health on a five point scale - dichotomized into good (above average) and average or below. Results: Compared to Norway, a significantly higher proportion of German doctors exceeded a 9 hour work day (58.8% vs. 26.7%) and 60 hours on-call per month (63.4% vs. 18.3%). Every third (32.2%) hospital doctor in Germany worked more than this, while this pattern was rare in Norway (2.9%). In a logistic regression model, working in Norway (OR 4.17; 95% CI 3.02-5.73), age 25-44 years (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.29-2.14) and not exceeding 9 hour work day and 60 hours on-call per month (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.03-1.77) were all independent significant predictors of good self reported health. Conclusion: A lower percentage of German hospital doctors reported self rated health as good, which is partly explained by the differences in work time pattern. Initiatives to increase doctors' control over their work time are recommended.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available