OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that sickness absence from work predicts workers' risk of later depression. METHODS: Study participants (n = 7391) belonged to the French GAZEL cohort of employees of the national gas and electricity company. Sickness absence data (1996-1999) were obtained from company records. Participants' depression in 1996 and 1999 was assessed with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale. The analyses were controlled for baseline age, gender, marital status, occupational grade, tobacco smoking status, alcohol consumption, subthreshold depressive symptoms, and work stress. RESULTS: Among workers who were free of depression in 1996, 13% had depression in 1999. Compared with workers with no sickness absence during the study period, those with sickness absence were more likely to be depressed at follow-up (for 1 period of sickness absence, fully adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28, 1.82; for 2 or more periods, fully adjusted OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.61, 2.36). Future depression was predicted both by psychiatric and nonpsychiatric sickness absence (fully adjusted OR = 3.79 [95% CI = 2.81, 5.10] and 1.41 [95% CI = 1.21, 1.65], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Sickness absence records may help identify workers vulnerable to future depression.
OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that sickness absence from work predicts workers' risk of later depression. METHODS: Study participants (n = 7391) belonged to the French GAZEL cohort of employees of the national gas and electricity company. Sickness absence data (1996-1999) were obtained from company records. Participants' depression in 1996 and 1999 was assessed with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale. The analyses were controlled for baseline age, gender, marital status, occupational grade, tobacco smoking status, alcohol consumption, subthreshold depressive symptoms, and work stress. RESULTS: Among workers who were free of depression in 1996, 13% had depression in 1999. Compared with workers with no sickness absence during the study period, those with sickness absence were more likely to be depressed at follow-up (for 1 period of sickness absence, fully adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28, 1.82; for 2 or more periods, fully adjusted OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.61, 2.36). Future depression was predicted both by psychiatric and nonpsychiatric sickness absence (fully adjusted OR = 3.79 [95% CI = 2.81, 5.10] and 1.41 [95% CI = 1.21, 1.65], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Sickness absence records may help identify workers vulnerable to future depression.
Authors: Arnstein Mykletun; Simon Overland; Alv A Dahl; Steinar Krokstad; Ottar Bjerkeset; Nicholas Glozier; Leif E Aarø; Martin Prince Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Teija I Honkonen; Timo A Aro; Erkki T Isometsä; E Marianna Virtanen; Heikki O Katila Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Sturla Gjesdal; Peder R Ringdal; Kjell Haug; John G Maeland; Stein E Vollset; Kristina Alexanderson Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2008-03-09 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Maria Melchior; Jane E Ferrie; Kristina Alexanderson; Marcel Goldberg; Mika Kivimaki; Archana Singh-Manoux; Jussi Vahtera; Hugo Westerlund; Marie Zins; Jenny Head Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-23 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: O Rantonen; K Alexanderson; J Pentti; L Kjeldgård; J Hämäläinen; E Mittendorfer-Rutz; M Kivimäki; J Vahtera; P Salo Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Hugo Westerlund; Jussi Vahtera; Jane E Ferrie; Archana Singh-Manoux; Jaana Pentti; Maria Melchior; Constanze Leineweber; Markus Jokela; Johannes Siegrist; Marcel Goldberg; Marie Zins; Mika Kivimäki Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-11-23
Authors: Agnès Le Port; Alice Gueguen; Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot; Maria Melchior; Cédric Lemogne; Hermann Nabi; Marcel Goldberg; Marie Zins; Sébastien Czernichow Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Giny Norder; Corné A M Roelen; Willem van Rhenen; Jan Buitenhuis; Ute Bültmann; Johannes R Anema Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-12-20 Impact factor: 3.240