شرایط کار روانی اجتماعی، مشارکت اجتماعی و سرمایه اجتماعی: یک مسیر علی بررسی در یک مطالعه طولی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34612||2006||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Social Science & Medicine, Volume 62, Issue 2, January 2006, Pages 280–291
Social capital is often claimed to be promoted by stable social structures such as low migration rates between neighbourhoods and social networks that remain stable over time. However, stable social structures may also inhibit the formation of social capital in the form of social networks and social participation. One example is psychosocial conditions at work, which may be determined by characteristics such as demand and control in the work situation. The study examines the active workforce subpopulation within the Swedish Malmö Shoulder Neck Study. A total of 7836 individuals aged 45–69 years, were interviewed at baseline between 1992 and 1994, and at a 1-year follow-up. Four groups of baseline psychosocial work conditions categories defined by the Karasek–Theorell model (jobstrain, passive, active, relaxed) were analysed according to 13 different social participation items during the past year reported at the 1-year follow-up. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals with the jobstrain group as a reference were estimated. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to assess differences in different aspects of social participation between the four psychosocial work conditions groups. The results show that the respondents within the active category in particular but also the relaxed category, have significantly higher participation in many of the 13 social participation items, even after multivariate adjustments. The results strongly suggest that psychosocial work conditions may be an important determinant of social capital measured as social participation, a finding of immediate public health relevance because of the well known positive association between social participation and health-related behaviours.
In recent years the social capital concept, which has its origins in sociology (Coleman, 1990) and political science (Putnam, 1993), has received great attention in the area of public health. Within the public health literature, social capital has been shown to be associated with health through the pathways of norms and attitudes affecting health-related behaviours, direct psychosocial mechanisms which serve to enhance self-esteem and confidence, social networks which tend to increase the access to health care and amenities, and by having a lowering effect on crime rates (Kawachi, Kennedy, & Glass, 1999). Social capital has been defined by Putnam as a combination of high levels of social participation in formal and informal social networks and social activities, high levels of trust and a society characterised by generalised reciprocity. These facets of social capital are often assumed to mutually enhance each other in a reciprocal relationship (Putnam, 1993). However, there is no general agreement on this definition of social capital. While some theorists define social capital as “ties” and norms linking individuals together across a variety of institutional and formal as well as informal associational realms (Granovetter, 1996; Rueschemeyer & Evans, 1985), others regard social capital as a “moral resource” such as trust (Fukuyama, 1995). Furthermore, social participation in formal and informal social networks and trust do not always enhance each other in a mutually reciprocal relationship. High levels of social participation may in fact be associated with low levels of trust, i.e. “the miniaturisation of community” (Fukuyama, 1999), a phenomenon which has been demonstrated to have implications for public health and health-related behaviours in several ways. Individuals with a combination of high social participation and low generalised trust in other people have significantly higher odds ratios of poor psychological health, cannabis use and low levels of patient satisfaction with the primary health care system (Lindström (2004a) and Lindström (2004b); Lindström & Axén, 2004). The adequate level for the analysis of social capital is also still disputed. Macinko and Starfield (2001) have identified at least four highly different levels of analysis on which social capital has been analysed in recent empirical studies: the macro level which entails countries and regions, the meso level which comprises social contexts such as neighbourhoods, the micro level which concerns social networks and social participation, and, finally, the level of individual attitudes such as psychological factors and trust. However, social participation in formal and informal social networks and social activities seems to be a well-established aspect of social capital which has been shown to be associated with health (Berkman & Syme, 1979) and a variety of health-related behaviours (Lindström, 2000). For instance, social participation promotes smoking cessation among daily smokers (Lindström & Isacsson, 2002), high levels of leisure-time physical activity (Lindström, Hanson, & Östergren, 2001), and high intake of vegetables (Lindström, Hanson, Wirfelt, & Östergren, 2001). The level of social participation varies by age, country of origin, marital status and socio-economic status (Lindström, 2000). It should be observed, though, that not all forms of social participation directly conform to the definition of social participation as an aspect of social capital. Social participation as an aspect of social capital is more narrow than the general and very wide definition of social participation as community participation. Social participation and activities such as e.g. visiting a theatre/cinema, an arts exhibition, a church service, a sports event, a night club/entertainment or writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper/journal could be suspected in some cases to be completely solitary activities which do not include the transmission of the norms and values of society. In that case, they would not completely fit the social capital definition of social participation. Other activities such as participation in a study circle at work, a study circle outside work or attending a private party may be borderline cases, because they may only fit Woolcock's (2001) definition of “bonding” social capital, i.e. social capital which binds members of an already existing social group closer together. The lack of “bridging” social capital, i.e. social capital which creates new channels for the communication of the norms and values of society, may lead to the exclusion of individuals who are not members of the social network, a process named by Putnam (2000) as “the dark side of social capital.” Other activities such as social participation in meetings of organisations, as well as demonstrations and gathering of relatives may be regarded as forms of social participation in accordance with social capital. Some aspects of social participation may be thus regarded as an important aspect of social capital. It is often assumed that social capital and different aspects of social capital such as social participation and trust are best promoted by stable social conditions such as stable social structures and low migration rates (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000; Putnam, 1995). The structure concept is often used to designate a certain pattern with some kind of continuity and durability over time. The exact definition and the exact properties which characterise such a pattern (structure) vary between authors. The structure concept implies some degree of stability or recurrence in the relationships between actors (Garner, 1977). “Actor” and “structure” are two of the most fundamental concepts in social and political sciences. The relationship between them concerns the autonomy and freedom of individuals, groups of individuals or organisations (“actors”) to act as opposed to the limitation of choices imposed by political, economic or social “structures” which may restrain the number of options and possibilities for the actors. The freedom and autonomy of actors is a question of control over one's own actions in the sense of the ability to initiate or terminate actions at one's discretion (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). This fundamental research problem has been formulated by Lukes (1977) as the extent and the ways that social actors, whether individuals or collectivities, are constrained to think and act in the ways they do. Giddens has limited the structure concept to denote the rules, i.e. the non-formalised guidelines for the social interplay, and the resources, i.e. the capacities for change. These rules and resources, or sets of relations between actors, are organised as properties of the social system. They can be used to enhance or to maintain power. The social system is defined by Giddens (1984) as the reproduced relations between actors or collectivities, organised as regular social practises. It seems obvious that not all social structures in a community strengthen social capital. Some characteristics of the social structure in a society may also have reverse, negative effects on social capital, social participation, and, in the next step of the causal pathway, for instance health-related behaviours. Lack of tolerance towards minorities in a community with strong social networks may be regarded as an example of “the dark side of social capital” (Putnam, 2000). Some of the social structures in the deep south in the USA have certainly not promoted the formation of social capital (Putnam, 2001). Another example of stable social structures, which may weaken social capital are work conditions, e.g. material or psychosocial conditions at work. Economic and technological progress may affect the organisation of workplaces and consequently, in the next step, both the material and psychosocial conditions at work. These structurally determined material and psychosocial work conditions may affect leisure time, social participation, norms, attitudes, and, ultimately, for instance health-related behaviours. Such structural processes were recognised already in 19th century political philosophy and sociology with Karl Marx as the leading author (Tannenbaum & Schultz, 2004). The most well known model for the analysis of work-related psychosocial conditions, the demand-control model, was introduced 25 years ago by Robert Karasek and Töres Theorell. The most basic and original model contains two dimensions or two latitudes. One dimension concerns the worker's control/decision latitude over his/her work situation in terms of creativity, repetitivity and freedom and responsibility to decide what to do and when to do it. The second dimension concerns demands on the worker when it comes to work pace, intensity, skills demanded to be able to do the work, and the possibility to keep up with colleagues. Four basic work-related psychosocial categories can be derived from this two-dimensional model. The work-related psychosocial conditions are characterised as “relaxed” if control (decision latitude) is high and demands are low, “active” if control is high and demands are high, “passive” if control is low and demands are low, and, finally, “jobstrain” if control is low and demands are high (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). It seems obvious that some work-related psychosocial conditions, particularly “jobstrain” (high demands and low control), but also “passive” (low demands and low control), may affect health and health-related behaviours in a less advantageous or even detrimental way. Several studies have also shown that “jobstrain” is positively associated with both cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality (Haynes, Feinleib, & Kannel, 1980; Karasek, Baker, & Marxer, 1981; Karasek, Theorell, & Schwartz, 1982; Siegrist, Peter, & Junge, 1990). Work related-psychosocial conditions may affect health by at least two different causal pathways. The first pathway would entail the direct effects on health caused by the psychosocial stress induced by the “jobstrain” category. “Jobstrain” may for instance directly decrease the likelihood of smoking cessation among smokers by introducing psychosocial stress. This direct psychosocial mechanism has already previously been proposed when it comes to several health-related behaviours (Hellerstedt & Jeffery, 1997). The second pathway concerns the effect of work-related psychosocial conditions on social participation, which, in the next step in the chain of causality, affects especially health-related behaviours. The second step, from social participation to health-related behaviours, is well documented (see e.g. Lindström, 2000). This causal relationship between social participation and health-related behaviours may be theoretically explained by either the psychosocial stress theory (Selye, 1946; Syme, 1989), the diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers, 1983), or the social capital theory (see above). In contrast, the first step in this causal chain, from psychosocial work conditions to social participation, calls for a more detailed investigation concerning the impact of the psychosocial demand-control/decision latitude categories on different aspects of social participation in formal and informal social networks and social activities. The “jobstrain” and “passive” categories may be hypothesised to affect social participation in formal and informal social networks and social activities negatively. On the other hand, particularly the “active” category may be hypothesised to lead to high levels of social participation and rich social networks even during leisure time. The “relaxed” category may be hypothesised to give rise to high levels of social participation to an extent similar to the “active” category. The aim of this longitudinal study is to assess the importance of the four baseline psychosocial work conditions categories (derived and defined from the Karasek–Theorell model) to 13 social participation activities during the past year reported at the 1-year follow-up.