A prospective study of work–private life conflict and number of pain sites: moderated mediation by sleep problems and support

4Citations
Citations of this article
53Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The objective of the current study was to elucidate how work–private life conflict prospectively affects musculoskeletal pain complaints by exploring possible mediation through sleep problems. In addition, the study determined whether support from coworkers and superior moderate this mediated relationship. The study incorporated a two-wave full panel design and participants included 4681 Norwegian working men and women. Path analyses were performed to study direct and indirect effects of work–private life conflict on sleep problems and multisite musculoskeletal pain, moderated by support. This study suggested time-lagged relationships of work–private life conflict with number of pain sites. Furthermore, sleep problems may mediate the effects of work–private life conflict on number of pain sites. While support has been found to affect the direct relationship between work–private life conflict and number of pain sites, it does not significantly moderate the indirect mediation effect, i.e. no moderated mediation effect of support was established. Findings from the present study suggest sleep may be one explaining factor in the complex work–pain mechanism, and this may aid the development of theories on work–private life conflict and pain. Since both work–private life conflict and support are modifiable work factors, primary workplace interventions by the employer aiming to reduce sleep problems and musculoskeletal pain in employees could target these specific work factors, and help prevent work-related pain complaints.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Vleeshouwers, J., Knardahl, S., & Christensen, J. O. (2019). A prospective study of work–private life conflict and number of pain sites: moderated mediation by sleep problems and support. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 42(2), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-018-9957-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free