Occupational Differences in Levels of Anxiety and Depression: The Hordaland Health Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on anxiety and depression in work life is scarce. This study examined if and how levels of anxiety and depression differed between occupations. The study encompassed 17384 workers with occupations classified according to ISCO-88 (COM) from the population-based Hordaland Health Study. Levels of anxiety and depression were assessed by the anxiety and depression subscales of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A and HADS-D, respectively). Main analytical method was univariate analysis of variance. Both HADS-A and HADS-D scores differed significantly between occupaional groups. HADS levels showed a distinct and inverse association with skill levels, most strongly observed for HADS-D scores in men. The relationship between skill levels and depression caseness was equally strong. Elementary occupations consistently showed higher-than-average HADS scores. The strength of the associations between depression score/caseness and skill levels are of clinical significance. Screening for depression should be considered in low-skill occupations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".