Skip to main content

Table 3 Change in or the level of pupil-reported school environment as predictor of teachers’ short-term sick leave (vs. no sick leaves) in 2004–05

From: School environment as predictor of teacher sick leave: data-linked prospective cohort study

Teacher characteristics

Unadjusted model

Model I*

Model II**

 

OR (95% CI)

P value

OR (95% CI)

P value

OR (95% CI)

P value

Women vs. men

  

1.41 (1.08-1.86)

0.01

1.45 (1.10-1.91)

0.009

Age/10 years

  

0.66 (0.57-0.76)

<0.001

0.67 (0.58-0.77)

<0.001

Special vs. general education (2004–05)

  

0.82 (0.49-1.38)

0.46

0.90 (0.53-1.50)

0.68

Fixed-term vs. permanent job (2004–05)

  

0.88 (0.62-1.26)

0.49

0.89 (0.62-1.27)

0.52

Short-term sick leaves in 01–02: yes vs. no

  

3.05 (2.22-4.19)

<0.001

3.14 (2.28-4.32)

<0.001

School characteristics

School location/follow-up time: 2 vs. 4 years

  

1.20 (0.79-1.83)

0.39

1.22 (0.78-1.91)

0.38

High vs. small PTR at school***

    

0.84 (0.54-1.29)

0.41

Low vs. high pupil socioeconomic composition****

    

0.63 (0.43-0.90)

0.01

Pupil school satisfaction

1 Poor at both times, 22 schools (n = 414)

    

1.00 = Referent

 

2 Good at both times, 36 schools (n = 619)

    

1.00 (0.69-1.44)

0.99

3 Negative change; from good to poor, 13 schools (n = 232)

    

1.78 (1.13-2.81)

0.01

4 Positive change; from poor to good, 22 schools (n = 413)

    

1.44 (0.98-2.11)

0.06

Pupils being bullied

1 Poor at both times, 27 schools (n = 501)

    

Referent

 

2 Good at both times, 29 schools (n = 488)

    

1.15 (0.79-1.69)

0.47

3 Negative change; from good to poor, 18 schools (n = 350)

    

0.97 (0.68-1.40)

0.89

4 Positive change; from poor to good, 19 schools (n = 339)

    

0.90 (0.60-1.36)

0.61

Pupils bullying others

1 Poor at both times, 28 schools (n = 464)

    

Referent

 

2 Good at both times, 28 schools (n = 549)

    

0.96 (0.66-1.40)

0.83

3 Negative change; from good to poor, 16 schools (n = 287)

    

1.51 (1.01-2.25)

0.04

4 Positive change; from poor to good, 21 schools (n = 378)

    

1.42 (0.97-2.08)

0.07

Indoor air quality

1 Poor at both times, 28 schools (n = 485)

1.00 = Referent

 

Referent

 

Referent

 

2 Good at both times, 37 schools (n = 699)

0.60 (0.45-0.79)

<0.001

0.63 (0.46-0.86)

0.003

0.61 (0.45-0.85)

0.003

3 Negative change; from good to poor, 7 schools (n = 121)

0.80 (0.50-1.30)

0.37

0.78 (0.50-1.30)

0.34

0.80 (0.47-1.35)

0.40

4 Positive change; from poor to good, 21 schools (n = 373)

0.59 (0.42-0.83)

0.002

0.64 (0.45-0.92)

0.02

0.60 (0.41-0.88)

0.009

  1. * Model adjusted for teachers’ sex, age, employment contract, occupation, sick leaves during 2001–2002, and school location/follow-up time. ** Model adjusted as Model I + pupil-teacher ratio, pupil cohort socioeconomic composition, school satisfaction, and bullying at school from baseline to follow-up. *** Indicates above baseline median pupil-teacher ratio (>10.29) both at baseline and at follow-up vs. below baseline median or decreased pupil-teacher ratio. **** Indicates the percentage of pupils at school whose mothers had no more than a vocational education both at baseline and at follow-up and those with a negative change (low pupil cohort socioeconomic composition) vs. the percentage of pupils whose mothers have higher than a vocational education at both times high pupil cohort socioeconomic composition).
  2. Multinomial logistic regression.
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us