952 – A Population-based Longitudinal Study On Work Environment And Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To investigate the relationships between work environmental factors and the risk of major depressive disorder (MDD) over one year and to identify factors associated with the outcomes of individuals with MDD. Methods We conducted a population-based longitudinal study of employees who were randomly selected in Alberta (n = 4239). MDD was assessed using the World Health Organization's Composite International Diagnostic Interview - Auto 2.1. Results The one-year incidence of MDD was 3.6% (95% CI: 2.8%-4.6%) overall. It was 2.9% (95% CI: 1.9% - 4.2%) in men and 4.5% (95% CI: 3.3% - 6.2%) in women. The relationships between work environmental factors and MDD differed by sex. In men, high job strain increased the risk of MDD in those who worked 35-40 hours per week; job insecurity and family-work conflict were predictive of MDD. Women who worked 35-40 hours, who reported job insecurity, high effort-reward imbalance and work-family conflict were at higher risk of MDD. Long working hours, negative thinking and having comorbid social phobia were predictive of MDD. Perceived work-family conflict, severity of major depressive episode and symptom of depressed mood were significantly associated with recurrence of MDD. Conclusions Job strain, effort-reward imbalance, job insecurity and work-family conflicts are important risk factors for the onset of MDD, and should be targets of primary prevention. However, these work environmental factors appear to operate differently in men and in women. Clinical and psychosocial factors are important in the prognosis of MDD. The factors associated with persistence and recurrence of MDD may be different.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".