English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In order to evaluate the grade of reaction to stressors, especially those in the occupational life of workers, the following stress survey was conducted. This survey consisted of 65 stress questionnaires based on the social readjustment rating scale prepared by Holmes and Rahe, including 18 new questionnaires on the occupational environment. The method is as follows. That is, marriage is given a score of 50 in reference-standard for stress strength and these 65 items for 1,630 workers were evaluated by self-rating method ranging in score from 0 to 100. As for each item, we found the average value for the total sample and we called it the stress score. The subject group (1,426 employees who were examined for Stress-Dock) judged their experience during the past 1 year by their stress scores. The stress scores for the stressors experienced in a year were summed (total experienced stress score). We examined whether the total experienced stress score would be an index of the degree of stress, etc. We then analyzed the relationship between the total experienced stress score and stress conditions (i.e. "severe (hereafter, the assumed severe group)", "borderline (borderline group)" and "not severe (not severe group)"). In addition, the relationship between the total experienced stress score and mental disorders (stress related diseases were the majority) diagnosed by ICD-10 was examined. Our findings and conclusions are as follows: 1. We presented two typical cases. Next, the distribution of the total experienced stress score in all subjects was shown. 2. The average total experienced stress score increased from 135 to 219 points and 312 points in the order, not severe group, borderline group and severe group. It was paid noticeable that the severe group had scores 2.3 high times higher the not severe group. 3. The mental disorders group diagnosed with ICD-10 as mental disorders was large including 888 people, and the average total score for experienced stress score was a high 312 points. This was, as many as 94 points higher than in the normal group, and a significant difference was admitted by both. The difference of 1.1 point was admitted in the LCU numbers. Moreover, in statistical analysis, the score method showed a high significant difference according to F41 and F43 compared with the number of LCU items. We thought that the difference of the score method was more comprehensible than that of the number of LCU items as a result. 4. We took the possible total experienced stress score as 100 points, and examined the score for patients with mental disorders. It was 78.8% in the group with a high 400 points or more, but percentage for patients with mental disorders was only 39.3% in less than 100 points. The greater the point increases the higher the frequency of the appearance of disease. 5. We thought that we were able to measure the degree of worker's stress to obtain the total experienced stress score from life event in the above-mentioned way.

sangyou eiseigaku zasshi/sangyō eiseigaku zasshi

Stress Assessment Method for Workers (Part 2) : The Diagnostic Analyses and Judgements of Stressful Conditions of Stress-Dock Examinees on the Basis of the Total Score of Numerical-Valued Stressors They Have Suffered for the Past 1 Year