Work conditions and their repercussions on the quality of life of rural workers

de Oliveira, Jeane Cristina Anschau Xavier; de Paula Corrêa, Áurea Christina; Cezar-Vaz, Marta Regina; Marcon, Samira Reschetti; Rosa, Isabele Torquato Mozer; Dalprá, Luanna Arruda e Silva

doi:10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2020-0408

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Rev. esc. enferm. USP 55 • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2020-0408 copy

Work conditions and their repercussions on the quality of life of rural workers^* * Extracted from the thesis: “A qualidade de vida de homens trabalhadores rurais inseridos no contexto da soja”, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, 2020.

Las condiciones de trabajo y su repercusión en la calidad de vida de los trabajadores rurales

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective:

To assess the context of work and analyze their repercussions on the quality of life of rural workers in soybean agribusiness.

Method:

Cross-sectional study, with an intentional sample of rural workers, conducted between the months of October and December 2019, with the application of the instruments World Health Organization Quality Life-bref and Scales of Assessment of Context and Human Cost of Work. The data were analyzed through bivariate and multivariate descriptive statistics.

Results:

The participants amounted to 299 rural workers. The scores of Work Conditions and Socioprofessional Relations were satisfactory and Organization of Work was critical. The scores of Physical and Cognitive costs were considered critical and of the Affective Cost was satisfactory. The Socioprofessional Relations have negatively impacted the overall quality of life and the Physical and Psychological, the Social Relations and the Environmental Domains, whereas Cognitive Cost positively impacted the Physical and the Environmental Domain and the Affective Cost positively impacted the Social Relations Domain.

Conclusion:

Although the Work Context and Human Cost indicated adverse conditions, only the Socioprofessional Relations exerted negative influences on the quality of life of rural workers.

DESCRIPTORS
Rural Workers; Working Conditions; Quality of Life; Occupational Health; Occupational Health Nursing

Assessment of work context
	Median	Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Minimum	Maximum	Standard deviation	Classification
Work conditions	2.0	1.81	1.0	4.0	0.67	Satisfactory
Work organization	2.5	2.53	1.0	4.6	0.65	Critical
Socioprofessional relations	2.0	1.86	1.0	5.0	0.74	Satisfactory
Human cost of work assessment
	Median	Mean ( $\bar{x}$ )	Minimum	Maximum	Standard deviation	Classification
Physical cost	3.0	2.94	1.0	5.0	0.87	Critical
Cognitive cost	3.0	3.32	1.0	5.0	0.89	Critical
Affective cost	1.8	2.00	1.0	4.3	0.80	Satisfactory

Variables	*n(%)*	PHYSICAL		PSYCHOLOGICAL		SOCIAL RELATIONS		ENVIRONMENT
Variables	*n(%)*	*Mean ranks*	*p-value*	*Mean ranks*	*p-value*	*Mean ranks*	*p-value*	*Mean ranks*	*p-value*
Work conditions
Satisfactory	*236(78.9)*	155.48	0.095	154.61	0.143	152.85	0.518	157.55	0.008(^a Legend: ** Kruskal-Wallis test (Dunn’s post-hoc test p < 0.05) with (a) ‘severe’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’; (b) ‘critical’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’; (c) ‘critical’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’. Note: (n = 299). )
Critical	*61(20.4)*	130.14		131.17		139.28		123.80
Severe	*2(0.7)*	108.75		179.75		141.00		58.25
Work organization
Satisfactory	*90(30.1)*	160.63	0.166	153.15	0.195	164.51	0.099	157.48	0.265
Critical	*195(65.2)*	147.44		151.43		142.46		148.84
Severe	*14(4.7)*	117.32		109.82		161.71		118.00
Socioprofessional relations
Satisfactory	*228(76.3)*	158.35	0.003(^b,c Legend: ** Kruskal-Wallis test (Dunn’s post-hoc test p < 0.05) with (a) ‘severe’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’; (b) ‘critical’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’; (c) ‘critical’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’. Note: (n = 299). )	156.25	0.028**	160.70	0.001(^c Legend: ** Kruskal-Wallis test (Dunn’s post-hoc test p < 0.05) with (a) ‘severe’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’; (b) ‘critical’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’; (c) ‘critical’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’. Note: (n = 299). )	162.25	0.001(^a,b Legend: ** Kruskal-Wallis test (Dunn’s post-hoc test p < 0.05) with (a) ‘severe’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’; (b) ‘critical’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’; (c) ‘critical’ ≠ ‘satisfactory’. Note: (n = 299). )
Critical	*67(22.4)*	127.52		132.42		117.39		115.06
Severe	*4(1.3)*	50.38		88.00		86.38		37.00
Physical cost
Satisfactory	*55(18.4)*	169.65	0.170	173.05	0.085	152.10	0.703	165.69	0.309
Critical	*191(63.9)*	145.78		145.38		147.25		147.42
Severe	*53(17.7)*	144.82		142.73		157.75		143.03
Cognitive cost
Satisfactory	*34(11.4)*	148.13	0.897	144.28	0.800	156.37	0.215	138.59	0.484
Critical	*164(54.8)*	148.40		148.57		142.41		147.81
Severe	*101(33.8)*	153.23		154.24		160.17		157.40
Affective cost
Satisfactory	*202(67.6)*	150.48	0.578	145.05	0.283	143.86	0.081	148.21	0.736
Critical	*86(28.8)*	145.78		158.26		158.95		155.56
Severe	*11(3.7)*	174.27		176.32		192.82		139.41

WHOQOL-Bref Scale	Variables	Estimate	Standard error	Statistics Z	p
Overall quality of life	Intercept	82.84	3.83	21.62	<0.001
	Work conditions	–1.69	1.57	–1.08	0.283
	Work organization	0.57	1.52	0.38	0.706
	Socioprofessional relations	–3.69	1.29	–2.87	0.004^* Legend:* Significant variables at 5% of significance (the same as 95% confidence). Note: (n = 299).
	Physical cost	0.91	1.03	0.89	0.377
	Cognitive cost	–0.53	1.09	–0.49	0.627
	Affective cost	0.80	1.11	0.72	0.472
Physical domain	Intercept	99.37	3.47	28.64	<0.001
	Work conditions	–1.98	1.16	–1.70	0.089
	Work organization	–0.47	1.17	–0.40	0.687
	Socioprofessional relations	–3.39	0.97	–3.48	0.001^* Legend:* Significant variables at 5% of significance (the same as 95% confidence). Note: (n = 299).
	Physical cost	–0.66	0.78	–0.84	0.401
	Cognitive cost	1.85	0.84	2.20	0.029^* Legend:* Significant variables at 5% of significance (the same as 95% confidence). Note: (n = 299).
	Affective cost	–0.41	0.85	–0.48	0.632
Psychological domain	Intercept	80.61	2.48	32.48	<0.001
	Work conditions	–0.49	1.18	–0.42	0.678
	Work organization	0.28	1.31	0.22	0.830
	Socioprofessional relations	–2.00	0.41	–4.83	<0.001^* Legend:* Significant variables at 5% of significance (the same as 95% confidence). Note: (n = 299).
	Physical cost	–1.19	0.78	–1.52	0.130
	Cognitive cost	0.96	0.85	1.13	0.258
	Affective cost	0.61	0.78	0.79	0.431
Social relations domain	Intercept	78.15	4.00	19.52	<0.001
	Work conditions	–0.36	1.45	–0.25	0.802
	Work organization	–0.26	1.53	–0.17	0.866
	Socioprofessional relations	–4.80	1.22	–3.94	0.000^* Legend:* Significant variables at 5% of significance (the same as 95% confidence). Note: (n = 299).
	Physical cost	0.20	1.07	0.19	0.850
	Cognitive cost	0.64	1.09	0.59	0.557
	Affective cost	2.69	1.27	2.12	0.035^* Legend:* Significant variables at 5% of significance (the same as 95% confidence). Note: (n = 299).
Environmental domain	Intercept	75.75	3.82	19.83	<0.001
	Work conditions	–2.05	1.39	–1.47	0.143
	Work organization	–0.97	1.31	–0.74	0.460
	Socioprofessional relations	–5.04	1.11	–4.55	<0.001^* Legend:* Significant variables at 5% of significance (the same as 95% confidence). Note: (n = 299).
	Physical cost	–1.33	0.96	–1.39	0.166
	Cognitive cost	3.78	1.01	3.76	<0.001^* Legend:* Significant variables at 5% of significance (the same as 95% confidence). Note: (n = 299).
	Affective cost	–0.06	1.01	–0.06	0.952

Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Enfermagem Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 419 , 05403-000 São Paulo - SP/ Brasil, Tel./Fax: (55 11) 3061-7553, - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: reeusp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author: Jeane Cristina Anschau Xavier de Oliveira, Av. Alexandre Ferronato, 1200 – Residencial Cidade Jardim , 78550–728, Sinop, MT, Brazil, jeane.anschau@hotmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

Work conditions and their repercussions on the quality of life of rural workers* * Extracted from the thesis: “A qualidade de vida de homens trabalhadores rurais inseridos no contexto da soja”, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, 2020.

Las condiciones de trabajo y su repercusión en la calidad de vida de los trabajadores rurales

ABSTRACT

Objective:

Method:

Results:

Conclusion:

Work conditions and their repercussions on the quality of life of rural workers^* * Extracted from the thesis: “A qualidade de vida de homens trabalhadores rurais inseridos no contexto da soja”, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, 2020.