ArticleScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2021
Office design as a risk factor for disability retirement: A prospective registry study of Norwegian employees.
Article in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions of activity-based offices are associated with employee well-being and self-reported work ability in hybrid work: a cross-sectional study.Journal of occupational health · 2025Article
- Office design, telework from home, and self-certified sickness absence: A cross-sectional study of main and moderating effects in a nationally representative sample.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
- Office design and occupational health - has research been left behind?Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
- Individual determinants of satisfaction with the work environment after relocation to activity-based workplaces: A prospective study.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives This aim of this study was to (i) examine differences in risk of subsequent disability retirement between employees working in cellular, shared, and open-plan offices and (ii) determine the contribution of gender, skill-level, work ability, medically certified sickness absence, leadership position, and personality traits (extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) as confounders. Methods Survey data on predictor variables combined with official objective registry data on disability retirement and sickness absence were extracted from a large Norwegian occupational cohort of office workers (N=6779, 53.5% women). Questionnaire data included the respondents' office designs, comparing cellular, shared, and open-plan offices, demographic characteristics, workability, and personality factors. Objective data on disability retirement and medically certified sickness absence were extracted from the sickness and disability benefit register of the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration. Results In the final fully adjusted model, employees working in shared [hazard rato (HR) 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.16] and open-plan (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.31-2.90) offices had significantly higher risk of subsequent disability retirement compared to employees in cellular offices. Gender, work ability, medically certified sickness absence, and conscientiousness had independent direct effects on risk of disability retirement. Conclusion This study shows that open and shared workspace designs have detrimental effects by increasing risk of disability retirement among office workers, even when taking other known predictive factors into account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.