MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409235785 · doi:10.32604/ijmhp.2025.060930

How Work Affects the Mental Health of Postdocs?—An Analysis Based on <i>Nature</i>’s 2020 Global Postdoc Survey Data

2025· article· en· W4409235785 on OpenAlex
Yang Li, Wanlin Cai, Wenke Wang, Chuanyi Wang

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health Promotion · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Education and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMental healthWork (physics)Environmental healthPolitical scienceMedicinePsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The postdoctoral workforce has been expanding worldwide, playing a vital role in scientific progress, innovation, and knowledge dissemination. Nevertheless, their mental health is also increasingly a global concern, exacerbated by challenges such as intense competition, growing responsibilities, and pressure to publish. Purpose: Research on work characteristics is essential for guiding policy and interventions, offering valuable insights into the factors that affect postdoctoral researchers’ mental health. Hence, this study aims to examine the impact of work characteristics on postdocs’ mental health and explore the underlying mechanisms drawing on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. Methods: Using data from Nature’s 2020 Global Postdoc Survey, this study examines how work-related factors influence mental health through regression analysis and percentile bootstrap methods, and eight hypotheses are proposed. Results: Working hours, overtime frequency, and job insecurity negatively predicted postdocs’ work-life balance satisfaction and directly increased the likelihood of mental health problems. Mentor support, job autonomy, and rewards enhanced work-life balance satisfaction and directly decreased the possibility of mental health problems. All six job characteristics indirectly influenced postdocs’ mental health through work-life balance satisfaction. Working hours had a stronger negative impact on work-life balance satisfaction for female postdocs, while job insecurity had a stronger negative impact on male postdocs’ work-life balance satisfaction. However, no significant gender differences were found in the impact of overtime frequency on work-life balance satisfaction. Conclusion: Job demands (working hours, overtime frequency, and job insecurity) significantly increased postdocs’ mental health problems whereas job resources (mentor support, job autonomy, and rewards) mitigated these problems. All these impacts were mediated through work-life balance satisfaction. Gender differences were evident regarding the relationship between job demands (working hours and job insecurity) and work-life balance satisfaction. These findings provide a basis for future research on the broader causal relationships between work characteristics and postdocs’ mental health, as well as studies examining variations across countries, cultures, and disciplines. This study also offers actionable recommendations for institutions, funding agencies, and mentors to foster better working conditions to improve postdocs’ well-being.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.346 · 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