Melody Almroth1, Tomas Hemmingsson1,2, Alma Sörberg Wallin3, Katarina Kjellberg1,4, Bo Burström3, Daniel Falkstedt1,4. 1. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Global Public health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Centre for Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High job demands, low job control, and their combination (job strain) may increase workers' risk of depression. Previous research is limited by small populations, not controlling for previous depression, and relying on the same informant for reporting exposure and outcome. This study aims to examine the relationship between objectively measured workplace factors and the risk of developing clinical depression among the Swedish working population while controlling for previous psychiatric diagnoses and sociodemographic factors. METHODS: Control, demands, and job strain were measured using the Swedish Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) measuring psychosocial workload linked to around 3 million individuals based on their occupational titles in 2005. Cox regression models were built to estimate associations between these factors and diagnoses of depression recorded in patient registers. RESULTS: Lower job control was associated with an increased risk of developing depression (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.39-1.48 and HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.24-1.30 for men and women with the lowest control, respectively), and this showed a dose-response relationship among men. Having high job demands was associated with a slight decrease in depression risk for men and women. High strain and passive jobs (both low control jobs) were associated with an increased risk of depression among men, and passive jobs were associated with an increased risk among women. CONCLUSION: High job control appears important for reducing the risk of developing depression even when accounting for previous psychiatric diagnoses and sociodemographic factors. This is an important finding concerning strategies to improve occupational and in turn mental health.
BACKGROUND: High job demands, low job control, and their combination (job strain) may increase workers' risk of depression. Previous research is limited by small populations, not controlling for previous depression, and relying on the same informant for reporting exposure and outcome. This study aims to examine the relationship between objectively measured workplace factors and the risk of developing clinical depression among the Swedish working population while controlling for previous psychiatric diagnoses and sociodemographic factors. METHODS: Control, demands, and job strain were measured using the Swedish Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) measuring psychosocial workload linked to around 3 million individuals based on their occupational titles in 2005. Cox regression models were built to estimate associations between these factors and diagnoses of depression recorded in patient registers. RESULTS: Lower job control was associated with an increased risk of developing depression (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.39-1.48 and HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.24-1.30 for men and women with the lowest control, respectively), and this showed a dose-response relationship among men. Having high job demands was associated with a slight decrease in depression risk for men and women. High strain and passive jobs (both low control jobs) were associated with an increased risk of depression among men, and passive jobs were associated with an increased risk among women. CONCLUSION: High job control appears important for reducing the risk of developing depression even when accounting for previous psychiatric diagnoses and sociodemographic factors. This is an important finding concerning strategies to improve occupational and in turn mental health.
Entities:
Keywords:
Depression; job control; job demands; job strain; occupational health
Authors: Johanna Jonsson; Carles Muntaner; Theo Bodin; Magnus Alderling; Rebeka Rebeka; Bo Burström; Letitia Davis; Virginia Gunn; Tomas Hemmingsson; Mireia Julià; Katarina Kjellberg; Bertina Kreshpaj; Cecilia Orellana; Eva Padrosa; David H Wegman; Nuria Matilla-Santander Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2021-08-16 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Melody Almroth; Tomas Hemmingsson; Alma Sörberg Wallin; Katarina Kjellberg; Daniel Falkstedt Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Kathryn Badarin; Tomas Hemmingsson; Lena Hillert; Katarina Kjellberg Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2021-11-26 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Angelo d'Errico; Daniel Falkstedt; Melody Almroth; Kathryn Badarin; Tomas Hemmingsson; Katarina Kjellberg Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Melody Almroth; Tomas Hemmingsson; Katarina Kjellberg; Alma Sörberg Wallin; Tomas Andersson; Amanda van der Westhuizen; Daniel Falkstedt Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.948
Authors: Claudia Lissåker; Tomas Hemmingsson; Katarina Kjellberg; Petra Lindfors; Jenny Selander Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 5.492
Authors: Daniel Falkstedt; Tomas Hemmingsson; Maria Albin; Theo Bodin; Anders Ahlbom; Jenny Selander; Per Gustavsson; Tomas Andersson; Melody Almroth; Katarina Kjellberg Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 3.015