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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".