The mediating role of work-to-family conflict in the relationship between shiftwork and depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With significant segments of the working population involved in shiftwork, there is the possibility of serious health outcomes. There are two possible pathways to ill health. In the biological pathway the body's circadian rhythms are affected, leading to physiological disturbances and the inability to cope. By contrast, the aim of this study is to elucidate a social pathway by which shiftwork may lead to mental ill health. It examines the mediating influence of work-to-family conflict in the association between shiftwork and depression. Gender differences are also investigated. The sample included 2,931 Canadian respondents with a spouse and at least one child living at home. Close to 28% of respondents were involved in some form of shiftwork. Structural equation modelling supported partial mediation through work-to-family conflict. Further analyses found that mediation was supported in sub-samples of male and female respondents. The results, however, suggest that the experience of shiftwork is quite similar for men and women as no significant differences were found between mediating models. Overall, the findings support the social explanation of the effect of shiftwork on mental health, but they do not rule out other social or biological pathways.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".