New recognition of the relationship between gender, work and health
Article Outline
Men and women differ in many ways regarding their health and susceptibility to disease. They value prevention differently and vary in their use of health services. Men and their perception of masculinity, are likely to focus on the importance of work and underestimate the impact of, for example, occupational stress on their physical and mental health. New research shows that work stress and job strain are increasing, and are linked, more and more, to significant depression and anxiety in men.
Will the recent and emerging changes in the world of work improve the health of employees? Conversely, will our interests in health have an impact on the future world of work? Workplace health remains a significant public health challenge. For many companies it is still a ‘private matter’ for their employees, except for work accidents and occupational diseases.
In this issue of the journal of men's health you will find several articles dealing with issues of the utmost importance, ranging from the impact of the ‘new world of work’ on men's health, to education and awareness through worksite wellness, and concrete workplace programs such as an initiative targeting men's weight in the workplace.
Adshead & Thorpe [1] rightly state that there is a new era of recognition of the relationship between work and health. In their review, they point out that the World Health Organization (WHO) has, in 2007, launched a new global plan of action for worker's health, calling for the protection and promotion of health in the workplace, improved performance of and access to occupational health services, and evidence-based preventive action. It is encouraging that the concept of the workplace as a setting for health improvement, especially for men, has attracted renewed interest.
Bonhomme [2] points out in his editorial that the workplace is a consistent and significant factor in the morbidity and mortality of men. The incidence of workplace death in the United States and Canada appear, rather, to be rising for men and falling for women. In addition to the question of mortality, it is also important to consider men's work stress, coping, and adaptation to the work environment, as Nahon & Lander [3] indicate. They point out that the literature shows the need for prevention strategies aimed at mitigating work stress factors and the risk of depression in men.
White et al [4] show, in their qualitative approach, that going into the workplace was a successful way to recruit men into a weight management program that was ultimately well-received. The initiative is an encouraging model that integrates mainstream health services with the more traditional occupational health provision.
Breucker [5] stresses that although men and women may work in the same business sector and perform the same tasks, they are exposed to different working environments, stresses and strains. Men suffer more from work-related injuries and muscular-skeletal disorders. Men take more days of sick leave because of cardiovascular diseases. These data underline the need for a more gender-sensitive approach to health, particularly in the case of work-related health matters.
Moving forward, it is imperative to improve health education in general, to exploit the health-promoting opportunities inherent in the workplace, and to develop healthy work practices and corporate cultures. Above all, however, as the WHO Workers Charter implicitly recognizes, we need to do so within a broader package of sustained initiatives which cultivate a healthy environment and provide personalized support for change [1].
References
- . Men's health and the workplace. jmh. 2008;5(2):118–124
- . Worksite Wellness: prevention, education, awareness. jmh. 2008;5(2):110–112
- . An integrity model perspective on working with occupational stress in men. jmh. 2008;5(2):141–147
- . Targeting men's weight in the workplace. jmh. 2008;5(2):133–140
- . Brave new world of work – more flexible, older and increasingly diverse but also healthier?. jmh. 2008;5(2):105–107
PII: S1875-6867(08)00067-5
doi:10.1016/j.jomh.2008.04.004
© 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc.
