IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/2002921105-108_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizational justice: Evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health

Author

Listed:
  • Elovainio, M.
  • Kivimäki, M.
  • Vahtera, J.

Abstract

Objectives. This study examined the justice of decision-making procedures and interpersonal relations as a psychosocial predictor of health. Methods. Regression analyses were used to examine the relationship between levels of perceived justice and self-rated health, minor psychiatric disorders, and recorded absences due to sickness in a cohort of 506 male and 3570 female hospital employees aged 19 to 63 years. Results. The odds ratios of poor self-rated health and minor psychiatric disorders associated with low vs high levels of perceived justice ranged from 1.7 to 2.4. The rates of absence due to sickness among those perceiving low justice were 1.2 to 1.9 times higher than among those perceiving high justice. These associations remained significant after adjustment for behavioral risks, workload, job control, and social support. Conclusions. Low organizational justice is a risk to the health of employees.

Suggested Citation

  • Elovainio, M. & Kivimäki, M. & Vahtera, J., 2002. "Organizational justice: Evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(1), pages 105-108.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2002:92:1:105-108_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:2002:92:1:105-108_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.