Impacts of poor working conditions, occupational psychology, and enterprise risk factors on occupational injury by path analysis
χ2检验分析不同企业特征间职业伤害发生差异，使用Spearman检验研究变量间的相关性，利用AMOS 26软件以Bootstrap法进行路径分析，以卡方自由度比（ χ2/ ν） 、比较拟合指数（CFI）、Tucker-Lewis指数（TLI）及近似均方误差（RMSEA）值评估路径分析模型拟合情况，以效应值及其占比分析职业心理因素、企业风险因素、不良作业条件对职业伤害的中介效应。 结果
M（ P25， P75）为40（20，50）分，不良作业条件得分为50（30，60）分，职业心理因素得分为20（10，30）分。存在职业伤害的企业占25.5%（1550家）。不同企业规模、分公司情况、临时用工、语言障碍及创立时间的企业职业伤害检出分布均具有统计学意义（ P＜0.05）。Spearman检验中，职业伤害与作业条件（ r s=0.440）、职业心理因素（ r s=0.205）、企业规模（ r s=0.307）、临时用工（ r s=0.282）、语言障碍（ r s=0.158）呈正相关，与分公司情况（ r s=−0.180）及创立时间（ r s=−0.176）呈负相关（ P＜0.05）。路径分析中，模型拟合度指数为 χ 2/ ν=2.85、CFI=0.997、TLI=0.993、RMSEA=0.018（90%CI：0.011~0.025）；企业风险及职业心理因素在不良作业条件对职业伤害作用中的间接效应值及其构成比分别为0.166（30.01%）及0.013（3.13%）；职业心理因素在企业风险因素对职业伤害作用中的间接效应值及其构成比为0.022（6.85%）。 结论
Occupational injuries, which can result in absenteeism, disability, or death, are closely related to poor working conditions. However, the improvement of operating conditions are often time-consuming and require significant economic inputs. Both occupational psychology and enterprise risk factors have been proved to be related to the occurrence of occupational injuries, but their roles in the influence path of adverse working conditions leading to occupational injuries remain unclear.
To explore the roles of occupational psychology and enterprise risk factors in the impact of adverse working conditions on occupational injury, so as to provide a scientific basis for enterprises with adverse working conditions to carry out targeted occupational injury intervention programs.
The survey data of 5997 manufacturing enterprises were obtained from the European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER) database. The data on enterprise risk characteristics, occupational injuries, working conditions, and occupational psychological factors were extracted and assigned. Occupational injury differences by enterprise categories were examined by chi-square test. Correlations between interest variables were evaluated by Spearman test. Path analysis with Bootstrap method was conducted using AMOS 26 software, and ratio of chi-square statistic to degree of freedom (
χ2/ ν), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to evaluate the path model candidates. The effect size and its proportion were calculated for variables (occupational psychological factors, enterprise risk factors, and adverse working conditions) included in the final model. Results
M( P25, P75) scores of occupational injuries, adverse working conditions, and occupational psychological factors were 40 (20, 50), 50 (30, 60), and 20 (10, 30), respectively. The enterprises that reported occupational injuries accounted for 25.5% (1550 enterprises) of the total enterprises. Proportions of the enterprises that reported occupational injuries varied significantly by company scale, branch companies, temporary employment, language barriers, and establishment time ( P<0.05). The results of Spearman test showed that occupational injuries were positively correlated with working conditions ( r s=0.440), occupational psychological factors ( r s=0.205), company scale ( r s=0.307), temporary employment ( r s=0.282), and language barriers ( r s=0.158); but negatively correlated with branch companies ( r s=−0.180) and establishment time ( r s=−0.176) ( P<0.05). In the path analysis, the fitness indexes of the final model were χ 2/ ν=2.85, CFI=0.997, TLI=0.993, and RMSEA=0.018 (90%CI: 0.011, 0.025). The indirect effect size values and constituent ratios of enterprise risk factors and occupational psychological factors in the effect of adverse working conditions on occupational injuries were 0.166 (30.01%) and 0.013 (3.13%) respectively. The indirect effect size value of occupational psychological factors in the effect of enterprise risk factors on occupational injuries and its constituent ratio were 0.022 and 6.85%. Conclusion
Enterprises with adverse working conditions may control the risk of occupational injuries by offering better solutions to surmount language barriers and temporary employment, developing occupational psychological intervention and optimization programs such as improving working hours system. At the same time, large enterprises, enterprises without branches, or enterprises with a long history are the focus of occupational injury prevention and control.