The cost of work-related stress to society: A systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review of the available evidence examining the cost of work-related stress (WRS) would yield important insights into the magnitude of this social phenomenon. The objective of this review was to collate, extract, and synthesize economic evaluations of the cost of WRS to society. A research protocol was developed. Included cost-of-illness (COI) studies estimated the cost of WRS at a societal level, and were published in English, French or German. Searches were carried out in ingentaconnect, EBSCO, JSTOR, Science Direct, Web of Knowledge, Google, and Google scholar. Included studies were assessed against 10 COI quality assessment criteria. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. These originated from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the EU-15. The total estimated cost of WRS was observed to be considerable and ranged substantially from US$221.13 million to $187 billion. Productivity related losses were observed to proportionally contribute the majority of the total cost of WRS (between 70 to 90%), with health care and medical costs constituting the remaining 10 to 30%. The evidence reviewed here suggests a sizable financial burden imposed by WRS on society. The observed range of cost estimates was understood to be attributable to variations in definitions of WRS; the number and type of costs estimated; and, in how production loss was estimated. It is postulated that the cost estimates identified by this review are likely conservative because of narrow definitions of WRS and the exclusion of diverse range of cost components. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.015 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".