Organisational justice and smoking: the Finnish Public Sector Study

Study Objective: To examine the extent to which justice of decision-making procedures and interpersonal relations is associated with smoking. Setting: Ten municipalities and 21 hospitals in Finland. Design and Participants: Cross-sectional data derived from the Finnish Public Sector Study were analysed with logistic regression analysis models with generalized estimating equations. Analyses of smoking status were based on 34 021 employees. Separate models for heavy smoking (>20 cigarettes per day) were calculated for 6295 current smokers. Main results: After adjustment for age, education, socio-economic position, marital status, job contract, and negative affectivity, smokers who reported low procedural justice were about 1.4 times more likely to smoke >20 cigarettes per day compared with their counterparts with high justice. In a similar way, after adjustments, low justice in interpersonal treatment was significantly associated with an elevated prevalence of heavy smoking (odds ratio (OR) = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.77 for men and OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.83 for women). Further adjustment for job strain and effort-reward imbalance had little effect on these results. There were no associations between justice components and smoking status or ex-smoking. Conclusions: The extent to which employees are treated with justice in the workplace seems to be associated with smoking intensity independently of established stressors at work.

Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in health-care management

Public participation in health-service management is an increasingly prominent policy internationally. Frequently, though, academic studies have found it marginalized by health professionals who, keen to retain control over decision-making, undermine the legitimacy of involved members of the public, in particular by questioning their representativeness. This paper examines this negotiation of representative legitimacy between staff and involved users by drawing on a qualitative study of service-user involvement in pilot cancer-genetics services recently introduced in England, using interviews, participant observation and documentary analysis. In contrast to the findings of much of the literature, health professionals identified some degree of representative legitimacy in the contributions made by users. However, the ways in which staff and users constructed representativeness diverged significantly. Where staff valued the identities of users as biomedical and lay subjects, users themselves described the legitimacy of their contribution in more expansive terms of knowledge and citizenship. My analysis seeks to show how disputes over representativeness relate not just to a struggle for power according to contrasting group interests, but also to a substantive divergence in understanding of the nature of representativeness in the context of state-orchestrated efforts to increase public participation. This divergence might suggest problems with the enactment of such aspirations in practice; alternatively, however, contestation of representative legitimacy might be understood as reflecting ambiguities in policy-level objectives for participation, which secure implementation by accommodating the divergent constructions of those charged with putting initiatives into practice.