Purpose: To examine the relationship between hazardous drinking behavior measured by AUDIT and metabolic syndrome (MetS) in male manufacturing workers. Methods and Subjects: Two thousand nine hundred and seventy eight male workers (age:20-67) who undertook health checkup and answered AUDIT questionnaire were included in the final analysis. The subjects were categorized into three groups by AUDIT score: low risk drinking group:0-7, middle risk drinking group:8-14, and high risk drinking group>15. The subjects were also categorized into three groups in alcohol consumption domain and two groups in alcohol related problems by subgroup of AUDIT. Results: Compared with low risk hazardous alcohol drinking group, the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) of having MetS were1.50 (1.05-2.92) for middle risk hazardous drinking group and 1.75 (1.03-2.18) for high risk drinking group after adjusted for confounding factors. The ORs of alcohol consumption domain were 1.06 (0.73-1.55), for middle risk group, 1.61 (1.10-2.43) for high risk group. The ORs of alcohol related problems domain was 1.46 (1.05-2.03) in high risk group. Conclusion: Hazardous drinking measured by AUDIT and its two structure domain (alcohol consumption and alcohol related problems) were associated with MetS in Japanese male manufacturing workers.
The aim of this study is to investigate an effective method of participatory intervention for workplace improvement that will contribute to the issues in evaluating such intervention studies, as well as improvement of productivity and workplace vitality, through classification and arrangement of evaluation indices in the intervention study of participatory intervention for workplace improvement. Methods: A total of 38 articles on intervention study of participatory intervention for workplace improvement were analyzed. The contents described in the articles were arranged according to items on the coding sheet, including: job and the type of subjects, number of subjects (number of workplaces), objective of workplace improvement (health problem in workplace), procedure and period of improvement, contents of improvement, and evaluation method and evaluation index. Finally, 32 articles were analyzed, with six articles being excluded from the analysis at the intensive reading stage. Results: The evaluation indices were classified into “physical health outcome,” “psychosocial health outcome,” “index of workplace climate and workplace culture,” “productivity outcome,” “number of occurrence of occupational accident, suspension of business due to accident, occupation-related disease,” and “others.” Multiple evaluation indices were chosen for all studies. Of the 32 articles, 12 intervention studies showed significant improvements in the evaluation indices. Discussion: In choosing an evaluation index for participatory intervention for workplace improvement, the motivation or objective for improvement was measured as the main effect. The set evaluation index differed according to the background of each initiative and the main objective. In addition, there was a tendency to measure secondary effects together by setting multiple evaluation indices. In order to set appropriate evaluation indices in accordance with the objective of workplace improvement, it is important to arrange each viewpoint of the systematic evaluation method, namely: process evaluation, output evaluation, and outcome evaluation. The need to develop empirical research, including development of the evaluation methods for workplace improvement by establishing control groups with high evidence levels, or using study designs such as randomized controlled trial (RCT), was suggested.