SICK building syndrome is a misnomer, according to a study which suggests its cold-like symptoms have more to do with the nature of jobs people do than the buildings in which they do them.

For the past 20 years people have been blaming the quality of buildings and their facilities, such as air-conditioning, for a range of symptoms that include headaches, coughs, tired or itchy eyes, runny noses or inexplicable tiredness. The study finds no evidence that the buildings are to blame.

More than 4,000 civil servants, aged between 42 and 62 and working in 44 buildings across London, were questioned about their health as part of the long-running Whitehall Study.

They were asked to list any symptoms of sick building syndrome, the physical properties of their offices and the demands of their job, including how well they were supported at work.

Respondents were asked if in the past fourteen days they had suffered any of ten symptoms commonly included in studies of sick building syndrome. Listed in order of the frequency in which they were reported, they were: headache; cough; dry, itchy, tired eyes; blocked, runny nose; tired for no reason; rashes and itches; cold; flu; dry throat; sore throat; and wheeziness.

A personal “sick building syndrome” score was created for each participant by adding the number of items ticked from the ten listed.

Separately, most of the buildings were also assessed by independent field workers who checked temperature, lighting intensity, levels of airborne bacteria, fungi and dust, humidity, ventilation flow, noise level and concentrations of carbon dioxide and airborne organic chemicals.

One in seven of the men and nearly one in five of the women respondents reported five or more symptoms of the syndrome.

There was some slight evidence that those who reported high levels of the symptoms worked in offices that were too hot and dry and had relatively high levels of airborne bacteria and dust.

But low symptom scores were found among those who worked in buildings where there was poor air circulation and unacceptably high levels of carbon dioxide, noise, fungus and airborne chemicals.

Ventilation systems had some small effect, with air-conditioning being linked with slightly higher scores. But the effect was not statistically significant.

The biggest factors linked with the symptoms were job stress and lack of support in the workplace, the team reports in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

“Sick building syndrome may be wrongly named,” say the authors. “Raised symptom reporting appears to be due less to poor physical conditions than to a working environment characterised by poor psycho-social conditions.

“If sick building syndrome is reported in a building, management should consider causes beyond the physical design and operation of the workplace and should widen their investigation to include the organisation of work roles and the autonomy of the workforce.”

Previous research by the Whitehall Study, which is led by Professor Michael Marmot, has highlighted a link between ill-health and control over work, job demands, work overload, job category and overweening managers.

OFFICE BLUES

Rosshall Academy, Glasgow: After opening in 2002 staff said that it was affecting their health. At least six were told by their doctors that they had sick building syndrome

St John’s House, Bootle: Building renovated at a cost of £40 million in the early 1990s after Inland Revenue workers said that it was making them ill

Berlaymont building, Brussels: the HQ of the European Commission was refurbished at huge cost after the discovery of asbestos but then Eurocrats complained that the building was too hot

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• How I lost the gift of joy for a while
• Why Ann Widdecombe has got it wrong
• Alas, it’s the end of the road for petrolheads