The combined effect of indoor climate and psychosocial stressors on subsequent headaches: A prospective study of the general working population in Norway
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024
The combined effect of indoor climate and psychosocial stressors on subsequent headaches: A prospective study of the general working population in Norway
This prospective panel study explores the link between indicators of poor indoor climate and psychosocial stressors in the work environment with subsequent headaches. A random sample of the Norwegian working population (18 to 66 years) was examined, using self-reported health symptoms and work exposures collected in 2009, 2013 and 2016. This study included repeated measurements of 6681 workers attending at least two consecutive interviews (16,493 observations). The results were analysed using generalized estimating equations (GEEs), adjusting for sex, birth year, occupation, education, baseline mental health and the presence of headache at baseline. Headaches were prevalent in 25.4% of cases, with odds ratios (ORs) increasing with poor indoor climate (ORcontinuous = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08–1.19) and number of psychosocial stressors (ORcontinuous = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04–1.14). The OR amongst individuals concurrently exposed to both poor indoor climate and psychosocial stressors was 1.49 (95% CI: 1.26–1.75). Approximately one in five headache cases were attributable to this combined exposure. Measures implemented to reduce the prevalence of headaches in the work environment should consider the combined impact of a poor indoor climate and psychosocial stressors.
StovnerLJZwartJAHagenKTerwindtGMPascualJ. Epidemiology of headache in europe. Eur J Neurol2006; 13: 333–345.
3.
LugoAEdvallNKLazarAMehraeiGLopez-EscamezJABullaJUhlenICanlonBGallusSCederrothCR. Relationship between headaches and tinnitus in a Swedish study. Sci Rep2020; 10: 8494.
4.
StovnerLJHagenKLindeMSteinerTJ. The global prevalence of headache: an update, with analysis of the influences of methodological factors on prevalence estimates. J Headache Pain2022; 23: 34.
5.
LindeMStovnerLJZwartJAHagenK. Time trends in the prevalence of headache disorders. The Nord-Trøndelag health studies (HUNT 2 and HUNT 3). Cephalalgia2011; 31: 585–596.
6.
BurchRCLoderSLoderESmithermanTA. The prevalence and burden of migraine and severe headache in the United States: updated statistics from government health surveillance studies. Headache J Head Face Pain2015; 55: 21–34.
7.
TietjenGEKhubchandaniJGhoshSBhattacharjeeSKleinfelderJ. Headache symptoms and indoor environmental parameters: results from the EPA BASE study. Ann Indian Acad Neurol2012; 15: S95–S99.
8.
EijkelenboomAOrtizMBluyssenPM. Building characteristics associated with self-reported dry eyes and headaches of outpatient workers in hospital buildings. Indoor Built Environ2021; 31: 682–695.
9.
MarmotAFEleyJStaffordMStansfeldSAWarwickEMarmotMG. Building health: an epidemiological study of “sick building syndrome” in the whitehall II study. Occup Environ Med2006; 63: 283–289.
10.
HjalteFOlofssonSPerssonULindeM. Burden and costs of migraine in a Swedish defined patient population - a questionnaire-based study. J Headache Pain2019; 20: 65.
11.
Hansson-HedblomAAxelssonIJacobsonLTedroffJBorgströmF. Economic consequences of migraine in Sweden and implications for the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for chronic migraine in Sweden and Norway. J Headache Pain2020; 21: 99.
12.
LindeMGustavssonAStovnerLJSteinerTJBarréJKatsaravaZLainezJMLamplCLantéri-MinetMRastenyteDRuiz de la TorreETassorelliCAndréeC. The cost of headache disorders in Europe: the eurolight project. Eur J Neurol2012; 19: 703–711.
13.
Begasse de DhaemOGharedaghiMHBainPHettieGLoderEBurchR. Identification of work accommodations and interventions associated with work productivity in adults with migraine: a scoping review. Cephalalgia2020; 41: 760–773.
14.
Di PrinzioRRArnesanoGMeragliaIMagnavitaN. Headache in workers: a matched case-control study. European J of Investigati in Health, Psychology and Edu2022; 12: 1852–1866.
15.
MolariusATegelbergAÖhrvikJ. Socio-economic factors, lifestyle, and headache disorders - a population-based study in Sweden. Headache J Head Face Pain2008; 48: 1426–1437.
16.
LeHTfelt-HansenPSkyttheAKyvikKOOlesenJ. Association between migraine, lifestyle and socioeconomic factors: a population-based cross-sectional study. J Headache Pain2011; 12: 157–172.
17.
NybergJGustavssonSLindeMÅbergNDRohmannJLÅbergMKurthTWaernMKuhnGH. Cardiovascular fitness and risk of migraine: a large, prospective population-based study of Swedish young adult men. BMJ Open2019; 9: e029147.
18.
HagenKVattenLStovnerLJZwartJAKrokstadSBovimG. Low socio-economic status is associated with increased risk of frequent headache: a prospective study of 22718 adults in Norway. Cephalalgia2002; 22: 672–679.
19.
Runeson-BrobergRNorbäckD. Sick building syndrome (SBS) and sick house syndrome (SHS) in relation to psychosocial stress at work in the Swedish workforce. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2013; 86: 915–922.
20.
UrhammerCGrynderupMBAppelAMHansenÅMHansenJMKaerlevLNabe-NielsenK. The effect of psychosocial work factors on headache. J Occup Environ Med2020; 62(11): e636–e643.
21.
DhainiSRZúñigaFAusserhoferDSimonMKunzRDe GeestSSchwendimannR. Care workers health in Swiss nursing homes and its association with psychosocial work environment: a cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud2016; 53: 105–115.
22.
AntonovKIsacsonD. Headache in Sweden: the importance of working conditions. Headache J Head Face Pain1997; 37: 228–234.
23.
AasaUBrulinCÄngquistKABarnekow-BergkvistM. Work-related psychosocial factors, worry about work conditions and health complaints among female and male ambulance personnel. Scand J Caring Sci2005; 19: 251–258.
24.
MagnavitaN. Headache in the workplace: analysis of factors influencing headaches in terms of productivity and health. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2022; 19(6): 3712.
25.
TynesTJohannessenHASterudT. Work-related psychosocial and organizational risk factors for headache. J Occup Environ Med2013; 55: 1436–1442.
26.
ChristensenJOKnardahlS. Work and headache: a prospective study of psychological, social, and mechanical predictors of headache severity. Pain2012; 153: 2119–2132.
27.
The Norwegian Labor Inspection Authority. Indoor climate and air quality in the workplace (in Norwegian: inneklima og luftkvalitet på arbeidsplassen). Trondheim, Norway: The Norwegian Labor Inspection Authority, 2022.
28.
KlepeisNENelsonWCOttWRRobinsonJPTsangAMSwitzerPBeharJVHernSCEngelmannWH. The national human activity pattern survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol2001; 11: 231–252.
29.
KangSOuDMakCM. The impact of indoor environmental quality on work productivity in university open-plan research offices. Build Environ2017; 124: 78–89.
30.
WolkoffPAzumaKCarrerP. Health, work performance, and risk of infection in office-like environments: the role of indoor temperature, air humidity, and ventilation. Int J Hyg Environ Health2021; 233: 113709.
31.
WyonDP. The effects of indoor air quality on performance and productivity. Indoor Air2004; 14(Suppl 7): 92–101.
32.
PachitoDVEckeliALDesoukyASCorbettMAPartonenTRajaratnamSMRieraR. Workplace lighting for improving alertness and mood in daytime workers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018; 3: Cd012243.
33.
AriesMBCVeitchJANewshamGR. Windows, view, and office characteristics predict physical and psychological discomfort. J Environ Psychol2010; 30: 533–541.
LahtinenMHuuhtanenPReijulaK. Sick building syndrome and psychosocial factors - a literature review. Indoor Air1998; 8: 71–80.
36.
SakellarisISaragaDMandinCKluizenaarYFossatiSSpinazzèACattaneoAMihuczVSzigetiTOliveira FernandesEKalimeriKMabiliaRCarrerPBartzisJ. Association of subjective health symptoms with indoor air quality in European office buildings: the OFFICAIR project. Indoor Air2021; 31: 426–439.
37.
ArikanITekinÖFErbasO. Relationship between sick building syndrome and indoor air quality among hospital staff. Med Lavoro2018; 109: 435–443.
38.
XiongJTzempelikosABilionisIAwalgaonkarNMLeeSKonstantzosISadeghiSAKaravaP. Inferring personalized visual satisfaction profiles in daylit offices from comparative preferences using a Bayesian approach. Build Environ2018; 138: 74–88.
39.
LeungM-YWangCFamakinIO. Integrated model for indoor built environment and cognitive functional ability of older residents with dementia in care and attention homes. Build Environ2021; 195: 107734.
40.
Statistics Norway. Samordnet levekårsundersøkelse 2009/13/19 – tverrsnitt. Tema: arbeidsmiljø (coordinated living conditions survey 2009/13/16 — cross sectional. Focus: work environment) (in Norwegian). Oslo, Norway: SSB, 2019.
41.
EloA-LDallnerMGamberaleFHottinenVKnardahlSLindströmKSkogstadAØrhedeE. Validation of the nordic Questionnaire for psychological and social factors at work—QPSNordic. Innovative theories, tools, and practices in work and organizational psychology. Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 2000, pp. 47–57.
42.
StovnerLJAl JumahMBirbeckGLGururajGJensenRKatsaravaZQueirozLPScherAITekle-HaimanotRWangSJSteinerTJ. The methodology of population surveys of headache prevalence, burden and cost: principles and recommendations from the Global Campaign against Headache. J Headache Pain2014; 15: 5.
43.
ISCO-08 2012. International standard classification of occupations. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office (ILO), 2012.
44.
HuZHuHHuangY. Association between nighttime artificial light pollution and sea turtle nest density along Florida coast: a geospatial study using VIIRS remote sensing data. Environ Pollut2018; 239: 30–42.
45.
WedderburnRWM. Quasi-likelihood functions, generalized linear models, and the gauss-Newton method. Biometrika1974; 61: 439–447.
46.
KirchW (ed) Population attributable risk (PAR)population attributable risk (PAR). In: Encyclopedia of public health. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, 2008, pp. 1117–1118.
47.
BruzziPGreenSBByarDPBrintonLASchairerC. Estimating the population attributable risk for multiple risk factors using case-control data. Am J Epidemiol1985; 122: 904–914.
48.
LuCYTsaiMCMuoCHKuoYHSungFCWuCC. Personal, psychosocial and environmental factors related to sick building syndrome in official employees of Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2017; 15: 7.
49.
KnudsenHNJensenOM. Indoor climate in renovated and energy retrofitted social housing. In Proceedings of indoor air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, 3–7 July 2016, 1837–1844.
50.
LanLSunYWyonDPWargockiP. Pilot study of the effects of ventilation and ventilation noise on sleep quality in the young and elderly. Indoor Air2021; 31: 2226–2238.
51.
Harvie-ClarkJConlanNWeiWSiddallM. How loud is too loud? noise from domestic mechanical ventilation systems. Int J Vent2019; 18: 303–312.
52.
FriskMMagnusonAKiviloogJIvarssonABKamwendoK. Increased occurrence of respiratory symptoms is associated with indoor climate risk indicators-a cross-sectional study in a Swedish population. Respir Med2007; 101: 2031–2035.
53.
YangQWangJNorbäckD. The home environment in a nationwide sample of multi-family buildings in Sweden: associations with ocular, nasal, throat and dermal symptoms, headache, and fatigue among adults. Indoor Air2021; 31: 1402–1416.
54.
ShahzadSSBrennanJTheodossopoulosDHughesBCalautitJK. Building-related symptoms, energy, and thermal control in the workplace: personal and open plan offices. Sustainability2016; 8: 331.
55.
KaczmarczykJMelikovAFangerPO. Human response to personalized ventilation and mixing ventilation. Indoor Air2004; 14(Suppl 8): 17–29.
56.
BluyssenPMRodaCMandinCFossatiSCarrerPde KluizenaarYMihuczVGde Oliveira FernandesEBartzisJ. Self-reported health and comfort in ‘modern’ office buildings: first results from the European OFFICAIR study. Indoor Air2016; 26: 298–317.
57.
LahtinenMSundman-DigertCReijulaK. Psychosocial work environment and indoor air problems: a questionnaire as a means of problem diagnosis. Occup Environ Med2004; 61: 143–149.
