Associations between psychosocial risk factors at work and the occurrence of mental stress related disorders (17 studies)
| Author, country population | Outcome | Exposure | OR | (95% CI) |
| Definition and assessment | Definition and assessment | |||
| Mino (1999), Japan, machine production, n=31015 | GHQ-30 GHQ-30≥8 | Job demands: one item | ♂ RR 1.39 | 0.92 to 2.10 |
| (always/sometimes present vs absent) | ♀ RR 1.14 | 0.81 to 1.59 | ||
| Supervisor support: one item | ♂ RR 1.10 | 0.69 to 1.74 | ||
| (absent vs always/sometimes present) | ♀ RR 2.21 | 1.25 to 3.89 | ||
| Stansfeld (1999), England, civil servants, n=10 30816 | GHQ-30 GHQ-30>4 | Job demands: adapted JCQ | ♂ 1.33 | 1.1 to 1.6 |
| (highest tertile vs lowest) | ♀ 1.24 | 1.0 to 1.6 | ||
| Decision authority: adapted JCQ | ♂ 1.29 | 1.1 to 1.5 | ||
| (lowest vs highest tertile) | ♀ 1.37 | 1.1 to 1.8 | ||
| Coworker support: adapted JCQ | ♂ 1.29 | 1.1 to 1.5 | ||
| (lowest vs highest tertile) | ♀ 1.12 | 0.9 to 1.4 | ||
| Supervisor support: adapted JCQ | ♂ 1.31 | 1.1 to 1.5 | ||
| (lowest vs highest tertile) | ♀ 1.11 | 0.9 to 1.3 | ||
| Effort-reward imbalance: imbalance: indicator of high effort and low rewards | ♂ 2.57 | 1.8 to 3.6 | ||
| (high efforts/low rewards vs no high efforts/lowrewards) | ♀ 1.67 | 1.0 to 2.9 | ||
| Skill discretion: adapted JCQ | ♂ 1.11 | 0.9 to 1.3 | ||
| (lowest vs highest tertile) | ♀ 1.09 | 0.8 to 1.4 | ||
| Bϋltmann (2002), Netherlands, 45 companies, n=88331 | GHQ-12≥4 | Job demands Questionnaire (JCQ) | ||
| Job demands: JCQ | ♂ 1.51 | 1.23 to 1.85 | ||
| (highest vs lowest tertie) | ♀ 1.44 | 1.03 to 2.01 | ||
| Decision latitude: JCQ | ♂ 1.14 | 0.9 to 1.43 | ||
| (lowest vs highest tertile) | ♀ 0.88 | 0.62 to 1.24 | ||
| Coworker support: JCQ | ♂ 1.25 | 1.04 to 1.49 | ||
| (low vs high) | ♀ 1.31 | 0.97 to 1.78 | ||
| Supervisor support: JCQ | ♂ 1.25 | 1.05 to 1.49 | ||
| (low vs high) | ♀ 1.12 | 0.85 to 1.47 | ||
| Emotional demands: Dutch QPJW | ♂ 1.73 | 1.40 to 2.14 | ||
| Work and Health,self-formulated (high (2–5) vs no (0,1)) | ♀ 1.39 | 1.01 to 1.91 | ||
| Job insecurity: QPJW, one-item | ♂ 1.63 | 1.18 to 2.27 | ||
| (yes vs no) | ♀ 0.94 | 0.56 to 1.59 | ||
| Bonde (2005), Denmark, various workplaces, n=284617 | SSPI≥4 | Skill discretion: Repetitive work (yes vs no) | 1.3 | 0.6 to 2.2 |
| Godin (2005), Belgium, private and public sector, n=152118 | SHI: upper quartile | Effort-Reward Imbalance Questionnaire (highest quartile vs rest) | ♂ 3.4 ♀ 2.0 | 1.7 to 6.7 0.9 to 4.1 |
| Kivimaki (2007), Finland, government, n=21 27119 | GHQ-12≥4 | Effort-Reward Imbalance Questionnaire (highest vs lowest quartile) | 2.04 | 1.80 to 2.32 |
| Procedural and organisational injustice: Organizational Justice Scale (highest vs lowest quartile) | 1.81 | 1.60 to 2.06 | ||
| Relational injustice: Organizational Justice Scale (highest vs lowest quartile) | 1.50 | 1.32 to 1.70 | ||
| Kivimaki (2007), Finland, hospital, n=10 73619 | GHQ-12≥4 | Effort-Reward Imbalance Questionnaire (highest vs lowest quartile) | 1.59 | 1.24 to 2.05 |
| Procedural injustice: OJQ (highest vs lowest quartile) | 1.67 | 1.29 to 2.15 | ||
| Relational injustice: OJQ (highest vs lowest quartile) | 1.56 | 1.21 to 2.02 | ||
| Hanson (2008), Sweden, various workers, n=30042 | MBI-GS>75th percentile | Job demands: SWES | ♂ 2.09 | 1.52 to 2.88 |
| (≥2 positive vs <2 out of four items) | ♀ 1.79 | 1.36 to 2.35 | ||
| Decision authority: SWES | ♂ 1.36 | 0.98 to 1.88 | ||
| (≥2 positive vs <2 out of four items) | ♀ 1.41 | 1.07 to 1.86 | ||
| Coworker support: SWES; one item | ♂ 1.45 | 0.97 to 2.17 | ||
| (4-point Likert scale, dichotomised: low (1,2) vs high(3.4)) | ♀ 1.92 | 1.25 to 2.93 | ||
| Supervisor support: SWES; one item | ♂ 1.65 | 1.19 to 2.31 | ||
| (4-point Likert scale dichotomised: low (1,2) vs high(3.4)) | ♀ 1.22 | 0.91 to 1.65 | ||
| Devereux (2011), England, 11 industrial types, n=146320 | GHQ-12 GHQ-12>3 | Job demands questionnaire: 4 items (highest vs lowest tertile) | RR 1.62 | 1.26 to 2.09 |
| Decision latitude: 15 items (lowest vs highest tertile) | RR 1.11 | 0.86 to 1.42 | ||
| Coworker and supervisor support: 7 items (lowest vs highest tertile) | RR 1.47 | 1.18 to 1.84 | ||
| Sundin (2011), Sweden, nurses, n=55521 | MBI Swedish version, EE EE >27 | Job demands: SWES, one item, 5-point Likert scale (at least once a week or more vs ≤1 day out of 10) | 4.33 | 1.98 to 9.45 |
| Coworker support: SWES; one item, 4-point Likert scale (less (1,2,3) vs always receiving support (4)) | 2.21 | 0.88 to 5.56 | ||
| Supervisor support: SWES; one item, 4-point Likert scale (less (1,2,3) vs always receiving support (4)) | 2.17 | 0.65 to 7.26 | ||
| Inoue (2013), Japan, manufacturing, n=5693 | Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) ≥5 K6 scale | Procedural injustice: Organizational Justice Questionnaire (OJQ): 7 items, 5 point scale; Permanent (P) non-permanent worker (NP) (highest vs lowest tertile) Relational injustice: OJQ interactional justice 6-items, 5 point scale (highest vs lowest tertile) | ♂ 1.37 (P) ♀ 5.25 (P) ♀ 2.84 (NP) ♂ 2.39 (P) ♀ 2.35 (P) | 0.43 to 4.34 0.82 to 33.6 1.19 to 6.75 0.61 to 9.39 0.51 to 10.9 |
| ♀ 1.61 (NP) | 0.78 to 3.30 | |||
| Laine (2014), Finland, public sector, n=329822 | GHQ-12 >3 GHQ-12 | Procedural injustice: 4 items Moorman’s inventory (highest vs lowest quartile) | 1.65 | 1.21 to 2.24 |
| Relational injustice: 4 items Moorman’s inventory(highest vs lowest quartile) | 1.29 | 0.97 to 1.72 | ||
| Bullying: item about mental violence or workplace bullying (yes vs no) | 1.57 | 0.97 to 2.53 | ||
| Taniguchi (2015), Japan, elderly facilities, n=54323 | BJSQ>13 (♂) or >12 (♀) | Bullying: Japanese NAQ, person-related | 3.46 (PR) | 1.49 to 8.05 |
| bullying (PR; six items), work-related bullying (WR; three items), | 2.85 (WR) | 0.61 to 13.26 | ||
| sexual harassment (SH; three items), five-point scale (≥1 item positive vs none) | 1.73 (SH) | 0.98 to 3.08 | ||
| Andersen (2017), Denmark, prison personnel, n=174124 | COPSOQ-CBI highest quartile | COPSOQ, 5-point Likert-scale (most exposed quartile vs least exposed three quartiles) | ||
| Job demands: 4 items | 1.61 | 1.21 to 2.16 | ||
| Coworker and supervisor support: 6 items | 1.31 | 0.98 to 1.76 | ||
| Emotional demands: 4 items | 1.46 | 1.06 to 2.01 | ||
| Effort-reward imbalance (low recognition): 3 items | 1.33 | 0.98 to 1.80 | ||
| Oshio (2017), Japan, 12 industrial types, n=741925 | Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) K6 ≥5 | Job demands: 5 items Japanese JCQ, 4- | ♂ 1.62 | 1.45 to 1.81 |
| point scale (median-split method classifying high vs low) | ♀ 1.71 | 1.38 to 2.13 | ||
| Procedural injustice: Japanese version of | ♂ 1.68 | 1.51 to 1.87 | ||
| OJQ, 7 items, 5-point Likert scale | ♀ 1.80 | 1.45 to 2.23 | ||
| Relational injustice: Japanese version of | ♂ 1.58 | 1.42 to 1.77 | ||
| OJQ, 6 items, 5-point Likert scale | ♀ 1.71 | 1.37 to 2.13 | ||
| Effort reward imbalance: Japanese version Effort-Reward Imbalance | ♂ 2.05 | 1.84 to 2.29 | ||
| Questionnaire, effort (three items), reward (seven items), 4-point scale | ♀ 1.84 | 1.48 to 2.28 | ||
| Kind (2018), Switzerland, youth welfare, n=12126 | BOSS T-score ≥60 | Workplace aggression: exposure to verbal and physical threats Verbal aggression vs no aggression | HR 1.67 | 1.09 to 2.58 |
| Pihl-Thingvad (2019), Denmark, social educators, n=182327 | CBI>75th percentile | Workplace violence: Scandinavian checklist, 4 items, 4-point Likert-scale (high exposed (≥1 incident per month) vs non- exposed) | 1.4 | 0.9 to 2.3 |
BJSQ, Brief Job Stress Questionnaire; BOSS, Burnout screening scales; CBI, Copenhagen Burnout Inventory; COPSOQ, Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire; EE, Emotional Exhaustion; GHQ, General Health Questionnaire; JCQ, Job Content Questionnaire; MBI, Maslach Burnout Inventory; MBI-GS, Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey; NAQ, Negative Acts Questionnaire; OJQ, Organizational Justice Questionnaire ; QPJW, Questionnaires; Perception and Judgement of Work; RR, relative risk; SHI, Short Fatigue Inventory; SSPI, Setterlind Stress Profile Inventory; SWES, Swedish Work Environment Survey.