Association of Chronic Work Stress, Psychiatric Disorders, and Chronic Physical Conditions With Disability Among Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There appear to be links between psychiatric disorders and work-related stress as well as between psychiatric disorders and physical conditions. This study explores the relationships between chronic work stress, psychiatric disorders, and chronic physical conditions and disability among workers. By doing so, this study sought to understand how these factors are associated with worker disability when they are experienced alone versus in combination with one another. METHODS: The study population was drawn from the Canadian Community Health Survey 1.2, a national population-based survey that gathered cross-sectional data on health status from 22,118 working respondents. The relationship between chronic work stress, chronic physical conditions, and psychiatric disorders and disability in the past 14 days was examined for working respondents by using logistic regressions controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, region, and occupation. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of respondents experienced chronic work stress either alone or in combination with a chronic physical condition, a psychiatric disorder, or both. Forty-six percent reported at least one chronic physical condition either alone or in combination. Finally, 11% had a psychiatric disorder. Compared with the group with none of the factors, those with an increasing number of combined conditions had increasing odds of disability after the analysis controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, occupation, and region. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of chronic work stress seems to amplify effects of psychiatric disorders and chronic physical conditions on disability. In addition, psychiatric disorders co-occurring with physical illness seem to be associated with significantly higher odds of disability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".