A Population-based Longitudinal Study on Work Environmental Factors and the Risk of Major Depressive Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the relation between work environmental factors and the risk of major depressive disorder (MDD) over 1 year, the authors conducted a population-based longitudinal study of randomly selected employees in Alberta, Canada (January 2008 to November 2011). Participants without a current or lifetime diagnosis of MDD at baseline (n = 2,752) were followed for 1 year. MDD was assessed using the World Health Organization's Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Auto 2.1. The overall 1-year incidence of MDD was 3.6% (95% confidence interval: 2.8, 4.6); it was 2.9% (95% confidence interval: 1.9, 4.2) in men and 4.5% (95% confidence interval: 3.3, 6.2) in women. The relations 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-to-work conflict were predictive of MDD. Women who worked 35-40 hours per week and reported job insecurity, a high effort-reward imbalance, and work-to-family conflict were at a higher risk of developing MDD. Job strain, effort-reward imbalance, job insecurity, and work-to-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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".