MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404322764 · doi:10.1177/00207640241291523

The weight of office? A scoping review of mental health issues and risk factors in elected politicians across democratic societies

2024· review· en· W4404322764 on OpenAlex
Alexander Smith, Stefanie Hachen, Ashley Weinberg, Peter Falkai, Sissel Guttormsen, Michael Liebrenz

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Psychiatry · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistory, Medicine, and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthScopusPublic healthPolitical sciencePoliticsDemocracyPsychological interventionPsychologyEnvironmental healthMEDLINECriminologyMedicinePsychiatryLawNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The mental health and capacity to govern of democratically-elected politicians have become burgeoning topics of interest. Notably, in fulfilling demanding and high-stress roles, political officeholders could encounter distinctive risk factors, yet existing research literature about these subpopulations remains underexplored. AIMS: This scoping review aimed to systematically examine the breadth of available evidence on mental health issues and risk factors affecting democratically-elected politicians internationally and to identify future research needs. METHODS: Using pre-defined eligibility criteria based on JBI guidelines, a systematic keyword search was conducted in May 2024 of MEDLINE, Scopus, and APA PsycNet, supplemented by snowballing techniques. Only those studies reporting primary, empirical evidence on mental ill-health or risk factors with psychological correlates from serving politicians in "Full" or "Flawed" democracies (per Democracy Index) were included from 1999 to 2024. Titles and abstracts were screened and the full-texts of potentially eligible literature were assessed before extraction and synthesis. RESULTS: Eighteen sources met the eligibility criteria, cumulatively encompassing ~3,500 national, state, and municipal politicians across seven democracies (Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Cross-sectional surveys were predominantly utilized, with lesser use of mixed-methods approaches, qualitative interviews, and longitudinal cohorts. Violence emerged as a key concept, with twelve sources (66.7%) underlining its psychological toll and certain data indicating a disproportionate impact on female officeholders. Furthermore, four sources (22.2%) explored general psychopathology trends, revealing varying but sizeable mental ill-health and high-risk alcohol consumption rates, and two studies (11.1%) demonstrated adverse effects from specific occupational conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature suggests that democratically-elected politicians can face complex mental health challenges. However, significant research gaps remain, including a paucity of prevalence estimates, longitudinal data, and intervention studies. Equally, the underrepresentation of most democratic countries accentuates the need for a more diverse evidence-base to better support the mental wellbeing of politicians worldwide.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.402 · 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