Work–family interference, psychological distress, and workplace injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We draw on conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, ) to investigate in two studies the relationship between work–family interference (i.e., work–family conflict and family–work conflict) and workplace injuries as mediated by psychological distress. In S tudy 1, we use split survey data from a sample of UK health care workers ( N = 645) to first establish the model, and then cross‐validate it, finding that work–family conflict (but not family–work conflict) was partially related to workplace injuries via psychological distress. In S tudy 2, we extend the model with a separate two‐wave sample of manufacturing and service employees ( S tudy 2; N = 128). We found that psychological distress fully mediated the relationship between work–family conflict and workplace injuries incurred 6 months later, controlling for prior levels of workplace injuries. The implications of making workplaces safer by enabling employees to better manage competing work and home demands are discussed. Practitioner points This research illustrates how the stress from managing work and family is related to more frequent workplace injuries. Reducing psychological distress – particularly from the conflict between balancing work and home domains – may be a way of keeping workers physically safe.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".