Occup Environ Med

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
[Advanced]

The most recent version of this article was published on 1 July 2008

Occup Environ Med. Published Online First: 16 April 2008. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.038430
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
oem.2007.038430v1
65/7/438    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bonde, J. P. E.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bonde, J. P. E.

Review Article

Psychosocial factors at work and risk of depression: a systematic review of the epidemiological evidence

Jens Peter Ellekilde Bonde 1*

1 Århus University hospital, Denmark

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jpbon{at}as.aaa.dk.

Accepted 31 January 2008


*   Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Major depression is a leading cause of psychiatric morbidity. Psychosocial factors at the workplace may influence the occurrence of this disorder, but evidence so far remains circumstantial. This paper reviews follow-up studies addressing the risk of major depression and depressive symptoms relative to psychosocial stressors in the working environment and evaluates the evidence of causality.

METHOD: Follow-up studies were identified by a systematic Medline search combining search terms for the outcome and measures of job-related psychosocial factors. The quality of the studies was evaluated by twenty-two criteria related to their potential for bias and confounding.

RESULTS: Sixteen company or population-based studies including some 63,000 employees were identified. Validated multi-item scales were used to measure perceived psychosocial stressors in most of the studies. Major depression was defined by clinical criteria in seven studies and by symptom scales were used in another seven studies. The follow-up period ranged from one to 13 years. The prevalence of depressive disorder varied substantially, which points to a high degree of study heterogeneity. The adjusted relative risk for onset of a major depressive episode according to job stressors spanned from 0.5 to 1.5 in 44 of a total of 61 reported associations with various dimensions of psychosocial factors. Associations were strongest and most consistent for job strain defined as high-demand and low decision latitude among men. Most studies shared common limitations such as lack of independent measures of exposure and outcome and potential confounding. Although a meta-analysis would technically be possible, heterogeneity across the studies as evident by much variation in the depression prevalence made such an approach unfeasible.

CONCLUSION: This review provides rather consistent findings indicating that perception of adverse psychosocial factors at the workplace is related to an elevated risk of subsequent onset of depressive symptoms or a major depressive episode, but several methodological limitations preclude causal inference. Studies that implement objective measures of job stressors or independent outcome ascertainment are warranted.





This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
K. Palmer
Work in Brief
Occup. Environ. Med., July 1, 2008; 65(7): i - i.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.