TY - JOUR
T1 - Work-related psychosocial risk factors for stress-related mental disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - van der Molen, Henk F.
AU - Nieuwenhuijsen, Karen
AU - Frings-Dresen, Monique H. W.
AU - de Groene, Gerda
PY - 2020/7/5
Y1 - 2020/7/5
N2 - OBJECTIVE: The objective was to conduct an update of a previously published review and meta-analysis on the association between work-related psychosocial risk factors and stress-related mental disorders (SRD). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and PsycINFO were searched for articles published between 2008 and 12 August 2019 and references of a systematic review performed for the period before 2008 were included. Primary prospective studies were included when outcome data were described in terms of SRD assessment or a dichotomous outcome, based on a validated questionnaire, and at least two levels of work-related exposure were reported (exposed vs less or non-exposed). We used GRADE to assess the evidence for the associations between risk factors and the onset of SRD. RESULTS: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, a population of 73 874 workers from Belgium, Denmark, England, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands and Sweden were included in the meta-analysis of 14 prospective cohort studies. This meta-analysis revealed moderate evidence for associations between SRD and effort reward imbalance (OR=1.9, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.15), high job demands (OR=1.6, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.72), organisational justice (ORs=1.6 to 1.7, CIs 1.44 to 1.86), social support (ORs=1.3 to 1.4, CIs 1.16 to 1.69), high emotional demands (OR=1.6, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.84) and decision authority (OR=1.3, CI 1.20 to 1.49). No significant or inconsistent associations were found for job insecurity, decision latitude, skill discretion and bullying. CONCLUSION: Moderate evidence was found that work-related psychosocial risk factors are associated with a higher risk of SRD. Effort-reward imbalance, low organisational justice and high job demands exhibited the largest increased risk of SRD, varying from 60% to 90%.
AB - OBJECTIVE: The objective was to conduct an update of a previously published review and meta-analysis on the association between work-related psychosocial risk factors and stress-related mental disorders (SRD). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and PsycINFO were searched for articles published between 2008 and 12 August 2019 and references of a systematic review performed for the period before 2008 were included. Primary prospective studies were included when outcome data were described in terms of SRD assessment or a dichotomous outcome, based on a validated questionnaire, and at least two levels of work-related exposure were reported (exposed vs less or non-exposed). We used GRADE to assess the evidence for the associations between risk factors and the onset of SRD. RESULTS: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, a population of 73 874 workers from Belgium, Denmark, England, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands and Sweden were included in the meta-analysis of 14 prospective cohort studies. This meta-analysis revealed moderate evidence for associations between SRD and effort reward imbalance (OR=1.9, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.15), high job demands (OR=1.6, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.72), organisational justice (ORs=1.6 to 1.7, CIs 1.44 to 1.86), social support (ORs=1.3 to 1.4, CIs 1.16 to 1.69), high emotional demands (OR=1.6, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.84) and decision authority (OR=1.3, CI 1.20 to 1.49). No significant or inconsistent associations were found for job insecurity, decision latitude, skill discretion and bullying. CONCLUSION: Moderate evidence was found that work-related psychosocial risk factors are associated with a higher risk of SRD. Effort-reward imbalance, low organisational justice and high job demands exhibited the largest increased risk of SRD, varying from 60% to 90%.
KW - epidemiology
KW - occupational & industrial medicine
KW - preventive medicine
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85087470663&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034849
DO - https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034849
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32624469
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 10
SP - e034849
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 7
M1 - e034849
ER -