The Association between Role Overload and Women's Mental Health
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the importance of role overload (the extent to which a person feels overwhelmed by her total responsibilities) relative to other known social determinants of women's mental health. METHODS: A Canadian national, random sample, cross-sectional telephone survey in 2003 assessed the association among role overload, types and quality of roles (parent, employee, spouse), sociodemographics, and mental health (using the SF-12) using linear regression. Analysis included 716 women aged 25-54 who indicated that their youngest child living in the household was aged < or =17 years. RESULTS: Perceptions of greater role overload were associated with poorer mental health (p < 0.0001). Women working <35 hours per week (p = 0.04) or 35-40 hours per week (p 5 0.002) reported better mental health than nonemployed women, as did women with the highest annual household income ($70,000+)(p = 0.001). Also associated with better mental health were higher marital status quality scores for both married and single women (p < 0.001), higher job quality scores among employed women (p = 0.02), greater homemaking quality scores among unemployed women (p = 0.03), and women reporting high parental quality (p = 0.04) CONCLUSIONS: Role overload showed a stronger relationship to mental health than other sociodemographic variables, including income. Our findings indicate the importance of measuring women's experience of their multiple roles rather than focusing on single roles. More research is warranted on the totality of women's experiences of their many social role obligations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it