Importance: Mental health problems are associated with considerable occupational, medical, social, and economic burdens. Psychosocial stressors at work have been associated with a higher risk of mental disorders, but the risk of sickness absence due to a diagnosed mental disorder, indicating a more severe condition, has never been investigated in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective: To synthesize the evidence of the association of psychosocial stressors at work with sickness absence due to a diagnosed mental disorder among adult workers. Data Sources: Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, and International Bibliography of the Social Sciences), 3 gray literature databases (Grey Literature Report, WHO-IRIS and Open Grey), and the reference lists of all eligible studies and reviews were searched in January 2017 and updated in February 2019. Study Selection: Only original prospective studies evaluating the association of at least 1 psychosocial stressor at work from the 3 most recognized theoretical models were eligible: the job demand-control-support model, including exposure to job strain (high psychological demands with low job control); effort-reward imbalance model; and organizational justice model. Study selection was performed in duplicate by blinded independent reviewers. Among the 28 467 citations screened, 23 studies were eligible for systematic review. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This meta-analysis followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Data extraction and risk of bias evaluation, using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-Interventions tool, were performed in duplicate by blinded independent reviewers. Data were pooled using random-effect models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sickness absence due to a mental disorder with a diagnosis obtained objectively. Results: A total of 13 studies representing 130 056 participants were included in the 6 meta-analyses. Workers exposed to low reward were associated with a higher risk of sickness absence due to a diagnosed mental disorder compared with nonexposed workers (pooled risk ratio [RR], 1.76 [95% CI, 1.49-2.08]), as were those exposed to effort-reward imbalance (pooled RR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.37-2.00]), job strain (pooled RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.24-1.74]), low job control (pooled RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.53]), and high psychological demands (pooled RR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.04-1.45]). Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis found that workers exposed to psychosocial stressors at work were associated with a higher risk of sickness absence due to a mental disorder. A better understanding of the importance of these stressors could help physicians when evaluating their patients' mental health and work capacity.
Importance: Mental health problems are associated with considerable occupational, medical, social, and economic burdens. Psychosocial stressors at work have been associated with a higher risk of mental disorders, but the risk of sickness absence due to a diagnosed mental disorder, indicating a more severe condition, has never been investigated in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective: To synthesize the evidence of the association of psychosocial stressors at work with sickness absence due to a diagnosed mental disorder among adult workers. Data Sources: Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, and International Bibliography of the Social Sciences), 3 gray literature databases (Grey Literature Report, WHO-IRIS and Open Grey), and the reference lists of all eligible studies and reviews were searched in January 2017 and updated in February 2019. Study Selection: Only original prospective studies evaluating the association of at least 1 psychosocial stressor at work from the 3 most recognized theoretical models were eligible: the job demand-control-support model, including exposure to job strain (high psychological demands with low job control); effort-reward imbalance model; and organizational justice model. Study selection was performed in duplicate by blinded independent reviewers. Among the 28 467 citations screened, 23 studies were eligible for systematic review. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This meta-analysis followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Data extraction and risk of bias evaluation, using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-Interventions tool, were performed in duplicate by blinded independent reviewers. Data were pooled using random-effect models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sickness absence due to a mental disorder with a diagnosis obtained objectively. Results: A total of 13 studies representing 130 056 participants were included in the 6 meta-analyses. Workers exposed to low reward were associated with a higher risk of sickness absence due to a diagnosed mental disorder compared with nonexposed workers (pooled risk ratio [RR], 1.76 [95% CI, 1.49-2.08]), as were those exposed to effort-reward imbalance (pooled RR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.37-2.00]), job strain (pooled RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.24-1.74]), low job control (pooled RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.53]), and high psychological demands (pooled RR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.04-1.45]). Conclusions and Relevance: This meta-analysis found that workers exposed to psychosocial stressors at work were associated with a higher risk of sickness absence due to a mental disorder. A better understanding of the importance of these stressors could help physicians when evaluating their patients' mental health and work capacity.
Authors: Mika Kivimäki; Jussi Vahtera; Ichiro Kawachi; Jane E Ferrie; Tuula Oksanen; Matti Joensuu; Jaana Pentti; Paula Salo; Marko Elovainio; Marianna Virtanen Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Saskia F A Duijts; Ijmert Kant; Gerard M H Swaen; Piet A van den Brandt; Maurice P A Zeegers Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Petra C Koopmans; Ute Bültmann; Corné A M Roelen; Rob Hoedeman; Jac J L van der Klink; Johan W Groothoff Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: Pauline Lanting; Patrick Deelen; Henry H Wiersma; Judith M Vonk; Anil P S Ori; Soesma A Jankipersadsing; Katherine Mc Intyre; Robert Warmerdam; Irene van Blokland; Floranne Boulogne; Marjolein X L Dijkema; Johanna C Herkert; Annique Claringbould; Olivier Bakker; Esteban A Lopera Maya; Ute Bültmann; Alexandra Zhernakova; Sijmen A Reijneveld; Elianne Zijlstra; Morris A Swertz; Sandra Brouwer; Raun van Ooijen; Viola Angelini; Louise H Dekker; Anna Sijtsma; Sicco A Scherjon; Cisca Wijmenga; Jackie A M Dekens; Jochen Mierau; H Marike Boezen; Lude Franke Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anna Nyberg; Paraskevi Peristera; Susanna Toivanen; Gun Johansson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Yasuhiko Deguchi; Shinichi Iwasaki; Akihiro Niki; Aya Kadowaki; Tomoyuki Hirota; Yoshiki Shirahama; Yoko Nakamichi; Yutaro Okawa; Yuki Uesaka; Koki Inoue Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ana Paula B Pena-Gralle; Denis Talbot; Caroline S Duchaine; Mathilde Lavigne-Robichaud; Xavier Trudel; Karine Aubé; Matthias Gralle; Mahée Gilbert-Ouimet; Alain Milot; Chantal Brisson Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 5.024