Organizational justice and illness reporting among Japanese employees with chronic diseases.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
26
04
2019
accepted:
24
09
2019
entrez:
22
10
2019
pubmed:
22
10
2019
medline:
17
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study examined the association between perceived organizational justice (i.e., procedural justice and interactional justice) and reporting of illness to one's company (illness reporting) among Japanese employees with chronic diseases. This online cross-sectional survey included 1,134 employees (aged 18-65 years) who required workplace support to combine work with disease treatment. Participants were classified into tertiles of perceived organizational justice (low, moderate, and high). Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine sex differences in the associations between perceived justice and illness reporting. Males reporting perceived high levels of procedural and interactional justice had significantly higher odds of illness reporting than those with perceived low levels of procedural (odds ratio [OR] 2.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47-4.66) and interactional justice (OR 4.34, 95% CI: 2.28-8.27). Females with perceived high levels of interactional justice had significantly higher odds of illness reporting than those with perceived low levels of interactional justice (OR 1.74, 95% CI: 1.08-2.80). There was no significant association between procedural justice and illness reporting among females. The findings indicate that high perceived organizational justice is positively associated with illness reporting among Japanese employees who require workplace support to combine work and disease treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31634347
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223595
pii: PONE-D-19-11868
pmc: PMC6802873
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0223595Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Occup Health. 2009;51(1):74-83
pubmed: 19096197
J Occup Rehabil. 2018 Jun;28(2):289-297
pubmed: 28660365
N Engl J Med. 1978 Oct 5;299(14):741-4
pubmed: 692548
J Occup Rehabil. 2017 Dec;27(4):593-600
pubmed: 28101790
Disabil Rehabil. 2011;33(17-18):1625-35
pubmed: 21171843
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 01;11(7):e0158588
pubmed: 27367908
Psychol Bull. 1994 Nov;116(3):457-75
pubmed: 7809308
JAMA. 2009 Feb 18;301(7):753-62
pubmed: 19224752
Disabil Rehabil. 2018 Nov 18;:1-10
pubmed: 30451033
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 13;8(12):e82720
pubmed: 24349347
Diabetes Care. 2001 Jan;24(1):64-8
pubmed: 11194243
J Occup Health. 2019 Sep;61(5):407-414
pubmed: 31050089
J Occup Environ Med. 2001 Dec;43(12):991-1000
pubmed: 11765683
Am J Public Health. 2002 Jan;92(1):105-8
pubmed: 11772771
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Mar;60(6):1397-407
pubmed: 15626533
Occup Environ Med. 2017 Mar;74(3):184-191
pubmed: 27694137
Int J Behav Med. 2019 Feb;26(1):76-84
pubmed: 30484083
Int J Behav Med. 2015 Dec;22(6):775-85
pubmed: 25792152
J Appl Psychol. 2014 Mar;99(2):310-21
pubmed: 24099347
Med Care. 2006 Apr;44(4):304-10
pubmed: 16565630
Prev Chronic Dis. 2014 Apr 17;11:E62
pubmed: 24742395
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Sep 1;23(17):1860-6; discussion 1867
pubmed: 9762743
Ann Behav Med. 2015 Jun;49(3):434-48
pubmed: 25472852
J Occup Rehabil. 2011 Jun;21(2):211-9
pubmed: 21153689
Am J Public Health. 2012 Oct;102(10):1911-20
pubmed: 22970692
Psychiatr Serv. 2004 Dec;55(12):1371-8
pubmed: 15572564
Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(26):2227-36
pubmed: 23594050