MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895394478 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025948

Effect of psychosocial work factors on the risk of certified absences from work for a diagnosed mental health problem: a protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

2018· review· en· W2895394478 on OpenAlexafffund
Caroline Duchaine, Mahée Gilbert‐Ouimet, Karine Aubé, Michel Vézina, Ruth Ndjaboué, Xavier Trudel, Lynne Moore, Danielle Laurin, Chantal Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité LavalThe Quebec Population Health Research Network
FundersInstitute of Population and Public HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychosocialCINAHLMedicinePsycINFOMental healthMeta-analysisMEDLINESystematic reviewCertificationFamily medicinePsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Mental health problems (MHPs) are frequent and disabling and are the first or second leading cause of certified sickness absences from work in industrialised countries. They are generally long lasting and generate a considerable human and socioeconomic burden. The deleterious effect of adverse psychosocial work factors on MHP has been documented. However, the evidence regarding the effect of these factors on absences from work for an MHP has not been synthesised since 2007. The proposed systematic review aims to synthesise the effect of adverse psychosocial work factors from three validated theoretical models (the demand-control-support, effort-reward-imbalance and organisational justice models) on the risk of certified absences from work for diagnosed MHP among workers. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search strategy will be conducted in seven databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Sociological abstracts and IBSS. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations, a multistep screening process by independent reviewers will lead to study selection. The search strategy was first run in 16 January 2017 and will be updated in October 2018. Only quantitative, prospective studies evaluating the effect of at least one psychosocial work factor from the validated theoretical models on certified absence from work for a diagnosed MHP will be considered for inclusion. Extracted data will be used for quantitative and qualitative evidence synthesis as well as to assess risk of bias and methodological quality. Meta-estimates will be provided for high-quality studies and by each psychosocial work factor, after considering homogeneity and number of studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study will be based only on published studies, ethics approval is not required. Given that psychosocial works factors are frequent and modifiable, the results of this systematic review may provide evidence to support prevention strategies that can help to reduce the human social and economic burden associated with medically certified absences from work for an MHP. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018091632.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0300.046
Bibliometrics0.0190.015
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.354
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207