Organizational justice and cardiometabolic disease: a systematic review

Scalabrin, Angela; Silva, Andréa Tenório Correia da; Menezes, Paulo Rossi

doi:10.1590/1413-81232022279.23482021EN

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

REVIEW • Ciênc. saúde coletiva 27 (09) • Sept 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232022279.23482021EN copy

Organizational justice and cardiometabolic disease: a systematic review

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The effects of organizational justice on workers’ health have been investigated in several areas of work. However, the systematization of available information on the effects related to cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and diabetes is scarce. This article aims to systematically review the association between organizational justice and CVD and metabolic disease in adult workers. The search strategy included the terms organizational justice, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, systemic arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus and CVD. This study investigated the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS. The quality of the studies was assessed using the instrument developed by the National Institute of Health. Results: This study identified 1,959 titles. After evaluation, eight studies were selected. Individuals with a high perception of organizational justice showed a lower risk of CVD and metabolic disease, whereas low organizational justice presented repercussions for the cardiovascular and metabolic health of workers. The development of strategies to promote organizational justice must be prioritized and thus mitigate its impacts on workers and institutions.

Key words:
Organizational justice; Occupational health; Cardiovascular diseases; Hypertension; Diabetes mellitus

Criteria	Kivimäki 2005¹⁹19 Kivimäki M, Ferrie JE, Brunner E, Head J, Shipley MJ, Vahtera J, Marmot MG. Justice at work and reduced risk of coronary heart disease among employees. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165(19):2245-2251.	Elovainio 2006²³23 Elovainio M, Leino-Arjas P, Vahtera J, Kivimäki M. Justice at work and cardiovascular mortality: a prospective cohort study. J Psychosom Res 2006; 61(2):271-274.	Kivimäki 2008²⁰20 Kivimäki M, Ferrie JE, Shipley M, Gimeno D, Elovainio M, de Vogli R, Vahtera J, Marmot MG, Head J. Effects on blood pressure do not explain the association between organizational justice and coronary heart disease in the Whitehall II Study. Psychosom Med 2008; 70(1):1-6.	Gimeno 2010²¹21 Gimeno D, Tabák AG, Ferrie JE, Shipley MJ, De Vogli R, Elovainio M, Vahtera J, Marmot MG, Kivimäki M. Justice at work and metabolic syndrome: the Whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med 2010; 67(4):256-262.	Inoue 2015²⁴24 Inoue A, Kawakami N, Eguchi H, Miyaki K, Tsutsumi A. Organizational justice and physiological coronary heart disease risk factors in japanese employees: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Med 2015; 22(6):775-785.	Rineer 2017²³23 Elovainio M, Leino-Arjas P, Vahtera J, Kivimäki M. Justice at work and cardiovascular mortality: a prospective cohort study. J Psychosom Res 2006; 61(2):271-274.	Varga 2021²²22 Varga T V, Xu T, Kivimäki M, Mehta AJ, Rugulies R, Rod NH. Organizational justice and long-term metabolic trajectories: a 25-year follow-up of the Whitehall II Cohort. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2022; 107(2):398-409.	Xu 2021²⁷27 Xu T, Clark AJ, Pentti J, Rugulies R, Lange T, Vahtera J, Magnusson Hanson LL, Westerlund H, Kivimäki M, Rod NH. Characteristics of workplace psychosocial resources and risk of diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Diabetes Care 2021; 45(1):59-66.
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined?	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%?	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes
4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided?	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Yes	NR	Yes
6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	Yes
8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome?	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time?	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	Yes
11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants?	NR	Yes	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR
13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less?	Yes	NA	CD	No	NA	NA	No	Yes
14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Quality rating (good, fair, or poor):	Good	Fair	Good	Fair	Fair	Fair	Good	Good

First author/year (reference number)	Kivimäki 2005 (19)	Elovainio 2006 (23)	Kivimäki 2008 (20)	Gimeno 2010 (21)	Inoue 2015 (24)	Rineer 2017 (23)	Varga 2021 (22)	Xu 2021 (27)
Location	United Kingdom	Finland	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Japan	United States of America	United Kingdom	Finland
Investigated population	Civil servants (man)	Industry workers (67% men and 33% women)	Civil servants (70.1% men and 29.9% women)	Civil servants (69.6% homens e 30.4% mulheres)	Civil servants (69.6% men and 30.4% women)	Civil construction workers (89.6% men and 10.4% women)	Industry workers (68% men and 32% women)	Civil servants (23% men and 77% women)
Study design	Cohort	Cohort	Cohort	Cohort	Cross-sectional	Cross-sectional	Cohort	Cohort
Number of participants	6,442	804	6,062	6,321	4,499	290	8,182	49,835
Age when entering study (age range and average age)	35-55 years (average per group on perception of justice: low - 43.6/intermediate - 43.7/ high - 44.2)	Average per group according to the perception of justice: low or intermediate - 39.1 high- 36.4	35-55 years (average 44)	35-55 years (average in men 44.8 years and in women 45.4 years)	Average in men 41.5 years and in women 40.9 years	Average 44.8 years	Average 44,4 years	40-65 years (average 48)
Ethnicity	93% white and 7% others	NR	89.4% white and 10.6% others	91.3% white and 8.7% others	NR	NR	91% white and 9% others	NR
Participation rate	73%	NR	73%	73%	90.1% in industry 1 and 96.2% in industry 2	NR	73%	65% to 71%
Average time of follow-up	8.7 years	25.6 years	9.6 years	18 years	NA	NA	25 years	10.9 years
Follow-up rate	0.93	NR	NR	0.59	NA	NA	NR	NR
Type of organizational justice investigated (exposure)	Interactional justice	Justice at work	Interactional justice	Interactional justice	Procedural justice and interactional justice	Procedural and distributive justice	Interactional justice	Procedural justice
Exposure measurement method	Self-applied justice questionnaire developed for the Whitehall II Study	Response to the affirmation “my supervisor treats me fairly” (Likert scale)	Self-applied justice questionnaire developed for the Whitehall II Study	Self-applied justice questionnaire developed for the Whitehall II Study	Organizational justice Questionnaire (Moorman)	Questionnaire of Price and Mueller and Organizational Justice Questionnaire (Moorman)	Self-applied justice questionnaire developed for the Whitehall II Study	Organizational justice Questionnaire (Moorman)
Number of evaluations of exposure	2	1	2	2	1	1	2	7
Main outcomes	CHD death, first nonfatal myocardial infarction, or definite angina	Death by CVD (ischemic heart disease, other heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases and other CVDs, according to the ICD-10)	Systolic blood pressure, Diastolic blood pressure, CHD death, first nonfatal myocardial infarction, or definite angina	Blood pressure, blood glucose, metabolic syndrome (according to criteria from NCEP/ATP III and AHA/NHLBI)	Systemic arterial hypertension	Systemic arterial hypertension	Waist circumference, hip circumference, BMI; fasting glucose, fasting insulin, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol	Type 2 Diabetes
Number of evaluations of outcome	2	continuous	2	3	1	1	5	continuous
Other investigated variables	Marital status, level of education, type of activity, total cholesterol, BMI, smoking habit, blood pressure, alcohol consumption, physical activity, other models of stress in the workplace	Occupation, smoking habit, physical activity, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, BMI, other stress factors in the workplace (demand-control, effort-reward)	Socioeconomic condition	Type of work	Level of education, occupation, work activity, chronic diseases (treatment for stroke, myocardial infarction, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia), psychological stress (K6 scale), smoking habit, alcohol consumption, physical activity, BMI, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides	Sex, marital status, childcare and eldercare responsibilities, number of hours worked per week, time working at the company, position (supervisor, leader, member of a team, or other), use of antihypertensive drugs	Age, ethnicity, marital status, income, type of job activity, smoking habit, systemic arterial hypertension, alcohol consumption, physical activity	Age, marital status, level of education, type of job activity, type of contract (permanent/nonpermanent), alcohol consumption, physical activity, BMI, previous diseases
Main results	Lower risk for coronary disease (HR 0.65; 95% IC- 0.47-0.89) in participants with high levels of interactional justice. Association remained after adjustment for: cholesterol, BMI, smoking habit, hypertension, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and other stress factors related to the workplace (demand-control and effort-reward models)	Lower risk of death in participants with a high level of justice (HR 0.55- 95% CI 0.34-0.88). Association remained after adjustment for: occupation, smoking habit, physical activity, systolic blood pressure, and BMI (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36-0.96) and after adjustment for stress factors in the workplace according to the demand-control and the effort-reward models (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.34-0.92). When both adjustments were performed, the HR was 0.61 with a 95% CI 0.36-1.00.	Lower risk for coronary artery disease in participants with high organizational justice (HR 0.87- 95% CI 0.77-0.98).	Lower risk of developing high blood pressure in men with high levels of organizational justice (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.78-0.95). Regarding the increase in blood glucose, no association was found (in men HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.87-1.36 and in women HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.87-1.19).	No association was found between procedural and interactional justice and the blood pressure levels of the participants	No association was found between procedural and distributive justice and the blood pressure levels of the participants	No association was found between procedural justice and glycemic and blood pressure levels of the participants.	Workers exposed to a work environment of a vertically favorable dimension (intermediate to high organizational justice, associated with quality leadership, but with low support from colleagues and culture of collaboration), a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes was observed (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.78- 0.97), when compared to workers exposed to an unfavorable work environment.

ABRASCO - Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva Av. Brasil, 4036 - sala 700 Manguinhos, 21040-361 Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brazil, Tel.: +55 21 3882-9153 / 3882-9151 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil
E-mail: cienciasaudecoletiva@fiocruz.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Collaborations

A Scalabrin and ATC Silva participated in the data collection, preparation of the original information, and write up and review of the article. PR Menezes collaborated in the write-up and review of the article. All authors participated in the approval of the final version of the article.