Occupational stress in industry setting in Benin 2019: A cross-sectional study

Abstract

Background

Occupational stress is a psychosocial risk in the workplace. Working conditions in industrial settings may lead to occupational stress. In Benin, however, there is little epidemiological data on occupational stress in industrial settings. We aimed to determine the prevalence and factors associated with occupational stress in industrial settings in Benin in 2019.

Methods

This was a prospective, cross-sectional study conducted from January 31 to April 11, 2019, among 15 cotton ginning plants. Sampling was exhaustive for permanent workers and stratified in clusters by shift for occasional cotton gin workers. Data were collected through Karasek and Siegrist questionnaires. Data analysis was performed using R software. Binary multivariable logistic regression was performed. The significance level was p < 0.05.

Results

Of 1883 workers included, 90.8% were male. The median age was 38 years (IQR: 28 years to 49 years). The prevalence of occupational stress was 77.7% (95% CI: 75.8–79.6). Psychological demand was high in 93.0% of workers and 83.9% had low decision latitude. Among the workers, 16.3% had low social support and 89.9% had a low recognition score at work. Factors associated with occupational stress were: being an occasional vs. permanent worker (aOR 6.43, 95% CI 4.18 to 9.88); age less than 38 years (aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.76); high intensity physical activity at work (aOR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.73); working in production vs. administration (aOR 1.59, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.45); spending fewer than 4 years at the current work location (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.44); and scoring low for recognition at work (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.23). Noise exposure and being a shift worker were significant in univariable analysis, but not multivariable analysis.

Conclusion

Occupational stress is very common among workers in industrial settings. The implementation and evaluation of preventive measures against these risk factors is necessary.

Introduction

Psychosocial risks, particularly stress, are emerging risks in the workplace. The work environment has a major influence on the mental health and well-being of each employee [1]. This work environment has positive effects when work provides satisfaction and contributes to personal self-fulfillment, or negative effects provoked by situations of stress, inadequate working patterns and schedules, possible situations of abuse and/or harassment [2].

Occupational stress is the reaction that people may have when confronted with work demands and pressures that challenge their coping ability [3]. Recent changes in how work is managed, characterized by tighter control of individual and collective productivity and by attempting to function with minimal manpower, create somatic and cognitive disorders in workers.

Occupational stress has consequences for both workers and companies [4]. Indeed, the conditions of stress at work are capable of creating diseases with more or less serious consequences on the biological, hormonal [5], physical, psychological, and social level of the individual [6,7]. Those psychological consequences are measured through emotional stability [8]. The homeostatic adaptations to stress are regulated by the central nervous system, the neuroendocrine system, and the immune system, which constitute an integrated biological circuit under the control of genes [9]. It has been reported that the work activity, especially that performed during the night, is able to influence the sleep-wake cycle, favoring the development of insomnia. Insomnia would subject the worker to such a stressful condition that it would encourage undesirable behaviors such as the use/abuse of psychotropic substances. A greater propensity of night workers to consume alcoholic beverages than those who work during the day, often in binge-drinking mode, has been reported in the literature [10].

Indeed, inadequate management of occupational stress can lead to a considerable decrease in workers’ performance, burnout [11], an increase in absenteeism from work, and use of psychoactive substances [12–14] like tobacco and alcohol abuse. There is a correlation between occupational stress and alcohol and tobacco abuse [15], especially in rotating or night workers [16,17].

When employee performance declines, it leads to reduced productivity, accidents, and injuries, which result in compensation and treatment costs for injured workers [18–20]. Work-related stress is also a risk for cardiovascular and psychiatric disorders [21,22]. The prevalence of work-related stress varies from one region to another, from one industry to another [3], and according to the tool used to measure stress. In Europe, occupational stress is the second most common work-related health problem, affecting 28% of employees [1]. In most countries, occupational stress has been most studied in the service sector, in particular health care, banking, and transport [23–25]. However, there is a dearth of literature in the industrial sector, which nevertheless may be at high risk of stress.

Cotton ginning sector is one such sector, where, due to market competitiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa, there is great pressure to achieve results. Workers also have other exposures that may cause stress including cotton dust, noise, shift work, and night work [16,26,27]. Faced with these factors, workers may be at risk of occupational stress in the course of their work. Owing to the lack of data on occupational stress, we sought to determine the prevalence and factors associated to occupational stress among cotton gin workers in Benin in 2019.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

A cross-sectional study was conducted from January 31 to April 11, 2019. The study was completed in Benin, West Africa (a low-income country with approximately 12 million inhabitants). Benin has 19 cotton ginning plants, 17 of which are operational. The study was conducted in 15 cotton ginning plants in the country, which included 8 factories in the northern area of the country, 4 in the central area (one factory has two plants), and 2 in the southern area. The two functional plants that were not included in the study were in the northern and central area of the country.

During the cotton season, which lasts an average of 6 months, factories operate 24 hours per day with an 8 hour shift system for most workers. The off-season period is marked by a reduction in production activities and plant staff. There are two sectors in the factory: production and administration. Workers in the production sector are exposed mainly to cotton dust, noise, extended standing, and intense shift work. Workers in the administration sector are exposed to prolonged sitting and work under pressure. Each plant has a functional infirmary staffed by non-occupational health professionals and an Occupational Health and Safety Committee (OHSC). Annual medical check-ups are not routine in all plants. The date of the last medical check-up at the time of the survey varied from 1 to 20 years depending on the plant. The 2019 medical check-up conducted in all ginning plants served as the framework for this study.

Study population and sampling

The study population consisted of permanent and occasional workers with at least 6 months of service (the equivalent of one cotton season). The inclusion criteria were: age over 18 years, casual or permanent worker status for at least 6 months in the company. The primary exclusion criterion was medical history of psychiatric pathology before beginning work in cotton ginning plants.

There were a total of 229 permanent workers across the plants. The sample size was calculated only for occasional workers assuming a stress prevalence of 50%, an absolute precision of 3.5% at the 95% confidence level, and a design effect of 2. After accounting for 5% refusal or exclusion, the sample size was 1647. The total sample size is therefore 1876. We performed consecutive, exhaustive recruitment for all permanent workers at each plant. For occasional workers, there were four different work-shifts at each plant. We treated each work-shift as a group and did cluster random sampling to select two work-shifts at each plant. We performed consecutive, exhaustive recruitment of occasional workers on these shifts.

Measurement

The outcome of interest was occupational stress assessed by the Karasek questionnaire [28]. This questionnaire is a measurement scale used as a diagnostic tool to assess the constraints of the psychosocial environment at work. The Karasek questionnaire makes it possible to study three dimensions of the human relationship to work. These are psychological demand (9 items), decision latitude (9 items) and social support (11 items). For each participant, the items were rated from 1 to 4 on the 4-point Likert scale, which made it possible to calculate their individual score.

Decision latitude (DL) evaluates the possibility for each worker to influence their work activity. It covers two dimensions: decisional autonomy (DA) and competence autonomy (CA). The median value of DL that was equal to 70 was used [28]. The score was low when it was less than 70 and high when it was greater than or equal to 70.

Psychological demand (PD) refers to the amount of work to be done, the mental demands and time constraints associated with that work. The median value of PD that was equal to 21 was used. The score was low when it was less than 21 and high when it was greater than or equal to 21.

Karasek’s model permits situating employees on a graph defined according to two axes: decision latitude on the x-axis and psychological demand on the y-axis. This graph is divided by axes corresponding to the median value of each score defining four dials: relaxed, active, stressed, and passive. If a subject had high DL and low PD they were classified as relaxed; if they had high DL and high PD they were classified as active; if they had low DL and high PD they were classified as stressed and if they had low DL and low PD they were classified as passive. Therefore, for our primary outcome of interest, participants scoring <70 on the decision latitude scale and ≥21 on the psychological demand scale were classified as having occupational stress.

Socio-demographic and occupational characteristics (age, sex, marital status, length of employment, details of working conditions as described by the plant manager on type of shift/night work, exposure to noise and chemicals) were collected. Behavioral characteristics defined according to the WHO STEPS questionnaire [29] (smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, and intense physical activity at work) were collected. Information on social support and recognition at work defined according to the Siegrist model were collected [28]. Social support (SS) encompasses all the social and practical interactions from which the worker benefits during their activities, consisting of social support from colleagues (SSC) and social support from the hierarchy (SSH). The median value of SS that was equal to 24 was used. The score was low when it was less than 24 and high when it was greater than or equal to 24. Job recognition or job satisfaction refers to the rewards that employees receive for their efforts at work. This reward includes the status and security of the employee’s job, the respect received, and their salary. The job recognition score was low when it was less than 20 and high when it was greater than or equal to 20.

All data were collected during face-to-face interviews using a digitized smartphone questionnaire with the KoboCollect app. Exact questions and how responses were mapped from the questionnaires to the various outcomes are described in S1 Methods.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed with R software (version 4.0.4). Proportions were calculated for categorical variables. Continuous variables were expressed as mean and standard deviation for those with a normal distribution while the median and interquartile range (Q1; Q3) were calculated for non-normally distributed variables. The normality of the distribution was checked with the Shapiro test. We did univariable regression with generalized linear mixed models, treating the business as the cluster, to estimate the association between different factors and occupational stress, expressed as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We did not include variables of alcohol misuse and smoking in regression analyses as these are likely colliders on the causal pathway (i.e., occupational stress and other factors may be associated with alcohol misuse and smoking). Variables in univariable regression with p<0.25 were retained in multivariable regression. We used an alpha of <0.05 to define significance.

Ethical considerations

Approval by the Ethics Committee of the University of Parakou was obtained (number 0194/CLERB- UP/P/SP/R/SA). Prior approval was obtained from the company’s managers (Number 529/2019/DG/DAF/DAFA/CSRH).

An information note and a consent form were approved by the ethics committee and used during the study. The briefing note is read and explained individually to participants and their expectations are collected before consent is given. Language translations were made for some participants. Written consent was obtained from each participant. The data was collected and processed with respect to confidentiality and human rights.

Results

Workers characteristics

The flow diagram of the participants ultimately included in the study is shown in Fig 1. A total of 1883 workers were included and 1709 (90.8%) were male (Table 1). Their median age was 38 years with an interquartile range (IQR) of 28 to 49 years. The majority of workers were Beninese (99.4%). The majority (82.5%) of participants did not have university-level education and the majority had a partner (76.0%). Few workers had permanent employment status (11.8%) or worked in administrative roles (11.7%). Of included participants, the median (IQR) time at their current role was 3 (2 to 12) years, at the current company was 4 (2 to 12) years, and working in the cotton sector was 5 (2 to 16) years. Most participants were exposed to high levels of noise in the workplace (78.8%). A minority of participants were current smokers or had a history of smoking (14.8%).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Prevalence of occupational stress and other outcome measures

Overall, 1464 of 1883 (77.7%, 95% CI: 75.8% to 79.6%) of workers met the definition for our primary outcome of experiencing occupational stress. The median score for psychological demand was 25 (IQR: 23 to 28) and for decision latitude was 60 (IQR: 52 to 66). Only 131 (7.0%) of participants scored low (<20) on the psychological demand component and 304 (16.1%) scored high (≥70) on the decision latitude component. A large proportion of workers felt they had low recognition at work (1692; 89.9%) Despite these scores, only a small minority of participants reported having low colleague support (13; 0.7%) or having low hierarchical support (37; 2%). Table 2 shows the prevalence of psychological and organizational constraints by ginning factory and region and Fig 2 shows the distribution of workers according to the Karasek dial, with psychological demand on the y-axis and decision latitude on the x-axis.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

All values are N (%).

Factors associated with occupational stress

In univariable analysis, several factors were associated with occupational stress, however few remained associated after multivariable adjustment (Table 3). The strongest factor associated with occupational stress was being an occasional vs. permanent worker, where those who were occasional workers had 6.43 (95% CI 4.18 to 9.88) times higher odds of occupational stress. Age less than 38 years was associated with 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.76) the odds of occupational stress as compared to persons aged 38 years and older. Other factors associated with occupational stress included high intensity physical activity at work (1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.73), working in production vs. administration (1.59, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.45), spending fewer than 4 years at the current work location (1.60, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.44), and scoring low for recognition at work (1.53, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.23).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study conducted in Benin to assess occupational stress among cotton ginning plants workers. We found 77.7% of included participants had occupational stress and it was most strongly associated with being an occasional vs. permanent worker. This prevalence of occupational stress is higher than those observed in other sectors of activity. This includes estimates of 27.3% in an insurance company in Benin [30], 54.6% in a port environment in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire [31], and 17% in employees across 14 companies in the Tunisian private sector [32]. Our estimates are closer to levels of stress found in the secondary sector of activity, such as a prevalence of 69% among firemen in Senegal [33] and 52% among migrant workers in Cameroon [34].

The strengths of the study lie in the large sample size, the methodology for the selection of participants, national representation of the study, the involvement of all socio-professional categories of the companies, and the use of a validated questionnaire. Indeed, the Karasek questionnaire is the most widely used tool in epidemiological surveys involving a large population, such as the SUMER survey [28,35].

A limitation of our study is that the psychometric qualities of the Karasek questionnaire are more effective in the service sector (interpretation of certain items) [23] whereas our study took place in the industrial sector. The cross-sectional nature of the study is also a limitation. However, the prevention of occupational stress cannot succeed without knowledge of its determinants in each sector, and little data are available in the cotton industry. The variability of the sectors of activity and the types of stress questionnaires used in other studies limits the generalizability of the results.

Being an occasional worker was strongly associated with occupational stress. The occupational status of the worker, especially in an industrial environment, determines the types of tasks that they are assigned. Thus, occasional workers in these ginning enterprises are more subject to tasks of physical strength, requiring rhythmic work where decision latitude is low. In addition, occasional workers are more subject to job insecurity because they generally only work for six months. Several authors have shown the relationship between working conditions, job insecurity and job stress [36–38]. Jigan et al found an association between the level of stress and many factors including, the type of work and the professional title, in an oil sector [22].

Age under 38 years appeared to be a protective factor for occupational stress after adjustment for other factors in our study. This may be contrary to expectation as older workers could be more confident in their work and less prone to work-related stress as they age, whereas young workers are still trying to find a work-life balance [22]. However, Go et al. showed in nurses that as age increased, work was perceived as more stressful [39]. This difference could be explained by our consideration of the time of workers in their position, company, and sector, which seemed to indicate higher levels of stress for newer workers.

The significant association between the role of the worker (production vs. administration) and occupational stress has also been found in other sectors of activity such as insurance and the oil sector [30,40]. In our study, workers in the production sector had nearly 60% increased odds of being stressed compared to workers in the administration sector. Our results corroborate those of Magroun et al. who found a significant association between occupational stress and four sectors of activity: wood production, furniture manufacture, poultry farming and the plastics and rubber industry [32] as well as the findings of Jigan et al [40].

High-intensity physical activity at work was significantly associated with occupational stress. Boudet et al., after considering the different factors of variation of stress, showed a protective effect of moderate physical activity towards occupational stress [41]. Physical activity is often associated with a reduction in stress and constitutes a method of stress control. However, in the professional context, when the physical workload is intense, it can constitute a risk factor for stress. In fact, in this context, intense physical activity reflects an overload of work or an unsuitability of the work for the person.

Working in the plants for less than 4 years is associated with occupational stress. The association between low job experience and occupational stress was also shown by Jianga et al. in oil industry workers [40]. Work experience allows the worker to better manage stressful situations and to better understand the assigned tasks. Workers who have worked for a shorter period of time lack work experience, and therefore need to improve their ability to perform the necessary work tasks. Because of their aspirations for success, the need to perform tedious tasks, and competition among colleagues, they are more likely to experience job stress. This finding is not consistent with the results of Lompo et al in the banking sector [42] and Diedhiou et al in firefighters [33] which may be attributed to differences between the study subjects and the type of work.

Low recognition at work doubled the risk of job stress. Hinson et al. found a similar result and showed that low recognition at work was an additional reason for job strain [30].

In an industrial environment, noise exposure is frequent, and its intensity varies from one workstation to another. Apart from the effects on hearing, some studies indicate that occupational noise exposure may increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension, coronary heart disease and stroke [43–45]. Some authors, such as Kivimäki et al, have concluded that the risk of coronary heart disease increases with occupational stress [21], while Selander et al and Eriksson et al have shown the synergistic action of noise and occupational stress on cardiovascular risk [46,47]. The results of the present study indicate that occupational noise exposure is associated with occupational stress in univariable analysis but not in multivariable. This could be due to power or suboptimal classification of noise exposure, as it was a classification based on workstation reporting.

Shift work is a frequent form of organization in industrial environments to facilitate the continuity of production. The association found in univariable analysis between shift work and occupational stress has been confirmed by other authors. Indeed, authors have found that occupational stress and shift/night work were associated, both independently and in combination, with an increased risk of poor mental health [22]. Working irregular shifts over a long period of time not only affects the physical health of workers but can also reduce work efficiency and lead to higher absenteeism, which increases the vulnerability of workers. In nurses, there is an association between rotating shift work and increased occupational stress [48]. Among health care workers, the best shifts in terms of reducing the incidence of shift-related disorders are the morning and evening shifts. The night shift is the worst shift in this regard [49]. Therefore, it is suggested that managers make decisions to limit exposure to night work. However, the lack of an association between occupational stress and shift work after adjusting for other factors in our study could be justified by the interactions between the variables.

Consideration of this occupational stress in the improvement of working conditions is necessary. Indeed, the occupational stress component has been integrated into the actions of the OHSC of plants. Thus, an action plan has been set up to map noise, to reinforce the control of the wearing of hearing equipment, to reinforce the personnel entities, and to improve the system of listening to the workers in plants. Several methods for managing work-related stress have been developed around the world: aromatherapy, bibliotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, alternative medicine, mindfulness, stress management, and sensory intervention [50]. Experimentation with some of these techniques in an intervention program is being considered for this population of workers.

Conclusion

The prevalence of occupational stress among workers in cotton ginning plants is very high. Occasional work, low workplace recognition, and working in production were the main factors associated with stress. Interventions to address or mitigate the impact of these factors on stress should be studied, such as the implementation of stress education, workplace support and recognition programs, and measures to improve job security.

Supporting information

S1 Methods. Description of methods to calculate decision latitude, psychological demand, social support, and job recognition, as well as exact questions asked to participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269498.s001

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

Our thanks go to the managers and workers of the companies for giving us the opportunity; and to the doctors, nurses, epidemiologists of CNHU-PPC and LEMACEN/FSS who invested in this work.

Thanks to L’Oréal-UNESCO for the Young Talents for Women in Science 2021 Award, Sub-Saharan Africa Region, which is a personal support to Dr. Adjobimey for her research work in textile industries.

Citation: Adjobimey M, Hinson V, Mikponhoué R, Hountohotegbe E, Klikpo E, Mama Cissé I, et al. (2022) Occupational stress in industry setting in Benin 2019: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 17(6): e0269498. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269498

About the Authors:

Mênonli Adjobimey

Roles: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Doctoral School of Health Sciences of Cotonou, Cotonou, Benin, Occupational Health Department of the National University Hospital of Pneumo-Phtisiology of Cotonou, Cotonou, Benin, Research and Teaching Unit in Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Benin, Faculty of Health Sciences of Cotonou, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Littoral, Benin

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1051-8546

Vikkey Hinson

Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Research and Teaching Unit in Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Benin, Faculty of Health Sciences of Cotonou, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Littoral, Benin

Rose Mikponhoué

Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Research and Teaching Unit in Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Benin, Faculty of Health Sciences of Cotonou, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Littoral, Benin

Esdras Hountohotegbe

Roles: Formal analysis, Software, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Occupational Health Department of the National University Hospital of Pneumo-Phtisiology of Cotonou, Cotonou, Benin

Elvyre Klikpo

Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Faculty of Health Sciences of Cotonou, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Littoral, Benin

Ibrahim Mama Cissé

Roles: Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Faculty of Health Medicine, University of Parakou, Cotonou, Benin

Amelée Adjogou

Roles: Data curation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Research and Teaching Unit in Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Benin

Véronique Dossougbété

Roles: Data curation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Faculty of Health Sciences of Cotonou, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Littoral, Benin, Louis Pasteur Clinic, Porto–Novo, Cotonou, Benin

Jonathon R. Campbell

Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2341-2166

Paul Ayélo

Roles: Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Research and Teaching Unit in Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Benin, Faculty of Health Sciences of Cotonou, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Littoral, Benin

Dismand Houinato

Roles: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Doctoral School of Health Sciences of Cotonou, Cotonou, Benin, Faculty of Health Sciences of Cotonou, University of Abomey-Calavi, Cotonou, Littoral, Benin

References

1. Légeron P. Le stress professionnel. Info PSY. 2008;84:809–20.

2. Allande-Cussó R, Jesús García-Iglesias J, Fagundo-Rivera J, Navarro-Abal Y, Antonio Climent-Rodríguez J, Gómez-Salgado J. Mental health and mental disorders in the workplace. Rev Esp Salud Pública [Internet]. 2022;96(21):e1–11. Available from: www.mscbs.es/resp. pmid:35058423

3. Chouanière D. Stress et risques psychosociaux: concepts et prévention. Documents pour le Médecin du Travail. INRS. 2006;106:169–86.

4. Guillemin MP. The New Dimensions of Occupational Health. Health N Hav. 2019;11(05):592–607.

5. Cannizzaro E, Plescia F, Cirrincione L, lo Pinto E, Plescia F. Sport for job. Differences in cortisol levels in a water polo team at different times of workout. EuroMediterranean Biomedical Journal. 2018;13(41):181–4.

6. Landolt K, Maruff P, Horan B, Kingsley M, Kinsella G, O’Halloran PD, et al. Chronic work stress and decreased vagal tone impairs decision making and reaction time in jockeys. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017 Oct 1;84:151–8. pmid:28732265

7. Uchida S, Hara K, Kobayashi A, Otsuki K, Yamagata H, Hobara T, et al. Epigenetic status of Gdnf in the ventral striatum determines susceptibility and adaptation to daily stressful events. Neuron. 2011 Jan 27;69(2):359–72. pmid:21262472

8. Ramaci T, Barattucci M, Vella F, Senia P, Cannizzaro E, Scorciapino A, et al. Straining at work and its relationship with personality profiles and individual consequences in healthcare workers (HCWs). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020 Jan 2;17(2).

9. Cannizzaro E, Ramaci T, Cirrincione L, Plescia F. Work-related stress, physio-pathological mechanisms, and the influence of environmental genetic factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Oct 2;16(4031):1–10.

10. Plescia F, Cirrincione L, Martorana D, Ledda C, Rapisarda V, Castelli V, et al. Alcohol Abuse and Insomnia Disorder: Focus on a Group of Night and Day Workers. Int J Environ Res Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(13196):1–15. Available from: pmid:34948807

11. Ilić IM, Arandjelović MŽ, Jovanović JM, Nešić MM. Relationships of work related psychosocial risks, stress, individuals factors and burnout- Questionnaire survey among emergency physicians and nurse. Medycyna Pracy [Internet]. 2017;68(2):167–78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.13075/mp.5893.00516.

12. Heikkilä K, Nyberg ST, Fransson EI, Alfredsson L, de Bacquer D, Bjorner JB, et al. Job strain and alcohol intake: A collaborative meta-analysis of individual-participant data from 140 000 men and women. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(7):1–7. pmid:22792218

13. Shikieri AB el Musa HA. Factors Associated with Occupational Stress and Their Effects on Organizational Performance in a Sudanese University. Creative Education. 2012;03(01):134–44.

14. Bamba M. Stress Management and Job Performance in the Industries Sector of Mali. Journal of Service Science and Management. 2016;09(03):189–94.

15. Pestana DVS, Raglione D, Junior LD, de Souza Pereira Liberatti C, Braga EC, de Lima Ezequiel VA, et al. Stress and substance abuse among workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in an intensive care unit: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2022 Feb 1;17(2 February).

16. Conway PM, Campanini P, Sartori S, Dotti R, Costa G. Main and interactive effects of shiftwork, age and work stress on health in an Italian sample of healthcare workers. Applied Ergonomics. 2008 Sep 1;39(5):630–9. pmid:18313640

17. Cannizzaro E, Cirrincione L, Mazzucco W, Scorciapino A, Catalano C, Ramaci T, et al. Night-Time Shift Work and Related Stress Responses: A Study on Security Guards. nt J Environ Res Public Health 2020,17, 562 [Internet]. 2020;17:562–71. Available from: www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph.

18. Madsen IEH, Nyberg ST, Magnusson Hanson LL, Ferrie JE, Ahola K, Alfredsson L, et al. Job strain as a risk factor for clinical depression: Systematic review and meta-analysis with additional individual participant data. Psychological Medicine. 2017;47(8):1342–56. pmid:28122650

19. Gintrac A. Le stress au travail, un état des lieux. Management Prospective. 2011;1(41):89–106.

20. Pitchot W. Stress au travail et affections cardiovasculaires: un lien prouvé. Acta Psychiatrica Belgica. 2015;116(2):7–8.

21. Kivimäki M, Nyberg ST, Batty GD, Fransson EI, Heikkilä K, Alfredsson L, et al. Job strain as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: A collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data. The Lancet. 2012;380(9852):1491–7. pmid:22981903

22. Jiang Y, Wu C, Hu T, Chen M, Liu W, Zhou Y, et al. Association for combined exposure to job strain, shift work on mental health among Chinese railway workers: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):1–7. pmid:33122313

23. Kitronza PL, Mairiaux P. Occupational stress among textile workers in the democratic republic of congo. Tropical Medicine and Health. 2015;43(4):223–31. pmid:26865824

24. Mohan GM, Elangovan S, Prasad PSS, Krishna PR, Mokkapati AK. Prevalence of job strain among Indian foundry shop floor workers. Work. 2008;30(4):353–7. pmid:18725698

25. Sein MM, Howteerakul N, Suwannapong N, Jirachewee J. Job strain among rubber-glove-factory workers in central Thailand. Industrial Health. 2010;48(4):503–10. pmid:20720343

26. Cannizzaro E, Cirrincione L, Mazzucco W, Scorciapino A, Catalano C, Ramaci T, et al. Night-time shift work and related stress responses: A study on security guards. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020 Jan 2;17(2).

27. Lin PC, Chen CH, Pan SM, CHEN YM, Pan CH, Hung HC, et al. The association between totating shift work and stress. J Occup Health. 2015;57:307–15. pmid:25958974

28. Guignon N, Niedhammer I, Sandret N. Les facteurs psychosociaux au travail: une évaluation par le questionnaire de Karasek dans l ‘ enquête Sumer 2003. Dares. 2008;22.1:1–8.

29. Organisation Mondiale de la Santé. Manuel de Surveillance STEPS de l ‘ OMS. OMS, editor. 2005.

30. Hinson A, Lawin H, Assilamehou S, Aguemon B, Ayélo P, Fayomi B. Prevalence du stress chez le personnel d’une compagnie d’assurance du benin. Rev CAMES SANTE. 2017;5:57–63.

31. Aka I, Guiegui CP, N’guessan L, Yao N, Tchicaya AF, Kouassi YM, et al. Etude du stress professionnel en milieu portuaire à Abidjan. Revue de Médecine. Revue de Médecine et de Pharmacie. 2016;6:561–70.

32. Magroun I, Ghannouchi H, Fehri S, Chatti M, Ben Salah F, Nouaigui H. Évaluation des contraintes psycho-organisationnelles selon le modèle de Karasek chez des salariés de 14 entreprises du secteur privé tunisien. Archives des Maladies Professionnelles et de l’Environnement. 2016;77(5):747–55.

33. Bocar BD, Coly O, Elhadji MB, Camara M, Sokhna S, Ndiaye M. Singularité des déterminants psycho-socio-professionnels et environnementaux du stress chez les sapeurs-pompiers de la 62ème compagnie d’incendie et de secours de Kédougou, sud-est Sénégal. CAMIP. 2020;1:1–9.

34. Manga O, Jules L, Y-KB Y. Le stress professionnel au Cameroun. Revue de Médecine et de Pharmacie [Internet]. 2011;1:27–30. Available from: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/rmp/cart/view/87451/77143.

35. Arnaudo B, Léonard M, Sandret N, Cavet M, Coutrot T, Rivalin R, et al. Les risques professionnels en 2010: de fortes différences d’exposition selon les secteurs. Reférences en santé au travail [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2022 May 19];133(1):59–74. Available from: http://www.inrs.fr/dms/inrs/CataloguePapier/DMT/TI-TF-207/tf207.pdf.

36. Landsbergis PA, Grzywacz JG, Lamontagne AD. Work organization, job insecurity, and occupational health disparities. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2014;57(5):495–515. pmid:23074099

37. Levi L. Le stress dans l’industrie: Causes, effets et prévention. 1984. 112 p.

38. Slopen N, Glynn RJ, Buring JE, Lewis TT, Williams DR, Albert MA. Job strain, job insecurity, and incident cardiovascular disease in the women’s health study: Results from a 10-year prospective study. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(7).

39. Osei-Mireku G, Wang X, Lartey J, Sarpong F. Individual Differences in Experiencing Occupational Stress—A Case Study on Nurses of Tamale Teaching Hospital (TTH). Open Journal of Business and Management. 2020;08(04):1657–73.

40. Jiang T, Tao N, Shi L, Ning L, Liu J. Associations between occupational stress and demographic characteristics in petroleum workers in the Xinjiang arid desert. Medicine (United States). 2018;97(31). pmid:30075521

41. Boudet G, Paris C, Simond-Rigaud ML, Ambroise-Pivert I, Desheulles J, Chamoux A. Effet protecteur de l’activité physique sur le stress professionnel: Prise en compte des différents facteurs de variation du stress. Archives des Maladies Professionnelles et de l’Environnement. 2005;66(5):427–37.

42. Lompo-Sanon SM, Ouédraogo AF, Traoré I, Kaboré SG, Ouédraogo V, Wendin-Manegde FN. Les facteurs associés au stress en milieu bancaire. CAMIP -Info. 2020;1:1–14.

43. Dzhambov A, Dimitrova D. Occupational noise exposure and the risk for work-related injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Work Exposures and Health. 2017;61(9):1037–53. pmid:29136415

44. Skogstad M, Johannessen HA, Tynes T, Mehlum IS, Nordby KC, Lie A. Systematic review of the cardiovascular effects of occupational noise. Occupational Medicine. 2016;66(1):10–6. pmid:26732793

45. Theorell T, Jood K, Järvholm LS, Vingård E, Perk J, Östergren PO, et al. A systematic review of studies in the contributions of the work environment to ischaemic heart disease development. European Journal of Public Health. 2016;26(3):470–7. pmid:27032996

46. Eriksson HP, Andersson E, Schiöler L, Söderberg M, Sjöström M, Rosengren A, et al. Longitudinal study of occupational noise exposure and joint effects with job strain and risk for coronary heart disease and stroke in Swedish men. BMJ Openpen. 2018;8(19160). pmid:29615446

47. Selander J, Bluhm G, Nilsson M, Hallqvist J, Theorell T, Willix P, et al. Joint effects of job strain and road-traffic and occupational noise on myocardial infarction. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. 2013;39(2):195–203. pmid:23032870

48. Lin PC, Chen CH, Pan SM, Chen YM, Pan CH, Hung HC, et al. The association between rotating shift work and increased occupational stress in nurses. Journal of Occupational Health. 2015;57(4):307–15. pmid:25958974

49. Zare S, Shirvan HE, Hemmatjo R, Faridan M, Hajghani M, Dehaghi BF. Using the analytic network process method for prioritizing and weighing shift work disorders among the personnel of hospitals of kerman university of medical sciences. Journal of Circadian Rhythms. 2018;16(1):1–10. pmid:30323851

50. Julia R, Mariantonia L. Addressing Psychosocial Work-related Stress Interventions: A Systematic Review. Work. 2021 Jan;70(1):53–62. pmid:34511476