Table 4

Associations between individual depressive symptoms and observed work unit averaged working conditions among 205 eldercare workers from 56 units

Model I*Model II†Model III‡
Relative difference (%)95% CIp ValueRelative difference (%)95% CIp ValueRelative difference (%)95% CIp Value
Resources
 Regulation requirements−3(−16% to 12%)0.689−2(−16% to 14%)0.804−3(−16% to 13%)0.712
Stressors
 Extra work (difference per 30 min)−6(−13% to 1%)0.103−6(−13% to 2%)0.154−6(−13% to 2%)0.143
 Sum of qualitatively different barriers−15(−28% to −1%)0.037−15(−28% to 0%)0.049−14(−27% to 2%)0.073
Barrier sub-scales
 Locomotion, movement and resident handling−7(−31% to 26%)0.641−10(−34% to 24%)0.525−12(−35% to 19%)0.390
 Information processing−6(−18% to 9%)0.408−5(−18% to 10%)0.489−5(−18% to 10%)0.458
 Equipment use−13(−23% to −2%)0.027−12(−23% to 0%)0.054−9(−20% to 3%)0.142
 Interruptions6(−13% to 29%)0.5718(−13% to 34%)0.4917(−14% to 32%)0.532
  • *Model I: adjusted for age in splines (<35. 36–50. 50<) and cohabitation.

  • †Model II: adjusted for covariates in model I and further adjusted for job group, shift and work hours.

  • ‡Model III: adjusted for covariates in model II and further adjusted for stressful life events.