Work environment characteristics of environmental epidemiologists and mental health conditions – A cross sectional survey among ISEE members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Working environment (verbal/physical abuse, threats, difficulties of publishing due to other than scientific interests, political interests) of environmental epidemiologists (EEs) is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to assess; a) working environment factors b) health situation of EEs and 3) associations between working environment and health situation of EEs. METHODS A cross-sectional survey among the ISEE members was conducted in February 2022. We assessed socio-demographics (age, gender, education), employment status, working environment and stress, depression, and anxiety. Descriptive statistics were conducted with the full sample at baseline to characterize employment status and employment related events (past and current). In addition to descriptive statistics, we explored the associations between working conditions and mental health conditions by calculating multiple linear regression analyses. RESULTS Majority of the participants (N=442) were females and from North America (316, 47% followed by Europe (139, 21%). As regards to work most were faculty members (298, 50%) and assistant or associate professors (270, 47%) with main areas of research of air pollution (187, 37%), chemicals (151, 30%) and climate change (75, 15%). Almost half of participants reported verbal abuse (246, 46%) and one-fifth threats of physical abuse at the workplace. Research was reported to be forbidden to get published by 11%. Increasing age was inversely associated with depression, anxiety and stress symptoms. Verbal and threats of physical abuse and difficulties to disseminate results were related to increased levels of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms. Political pressure was not related to increased levels of mental health conditions. CONCLUSIONS Study findings suggest that a comprehensive workplace prevention program accompanied by research identifying scientists job stress in different workplaces is critical. To prevent exposures and improve the mental health conditions of EEs, workplace violence prevention procedures at the organizational and at the societal level are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".