Evaluation of well-being in workers: comparison of two tools of measurement

Aim of the study Many studies have evaluated well-being in workers. The evaluation of this parameter is made classically with standardized and validated questionnaires. These questionnaires are most often long because the number of items is high. Hence, this evaluation is difficult in consultation of occupational medicine at hospital where the consultation is relatively short. The objective of this study is to compare two tools of measurement of well-being in workers, the modified general health questionnaire (GHQ) of Goldberg and a visual analogic scale, Classically used in determination of pain level. This scale has not been yet tested in the field of well-being in workers, in the area of occupational medicine. Methods Between january and march 2006, 205 consecutive hospital workers, seen in consultation of occupational medicine, have been questioned on well-being at work with the two proposed tools. Some demographic characteristics and the type of profession have been collected and computerized. Results Statistical analysis shows a significant correlation between the GHQ questionnaire and the level of wellbeing determined by visual analogic scale (correlation coefficient = 0.898, p < 0.0001). This result is identical for the men and for the women, and according to the type of profession. In addition, an inverse correlation has been observed between the level of well-being and age (evaluated by the VAS scores). Conclusion This pilot study shows the good correlation between the two proposed tools. It should make it possible to generalize in a simple and rapid way the measurement of the well-being at work of hospital personnel.