Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Are depressive disorders caused by psychosocial stressors at work? A systematic review with metaanalysis

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Mikkelsen, Sigurd ; Coggon, David ; Andersen, Johan Hviid ; Casey, Patricia ; Flachs, Esben Meulengracht ; Kolstad, Henrik Albert ; Mors, Ole ; Bonde, Jens Peter. / Are depressive disorders caused by psychosocial stressors at work? A systematic review with metaanalysis. In: European Journal of Epidemiology. 2021 ; Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 479-496.

Bibtex

@article{a67ab806e68c4557a61aeac773e3bc04,
title = "Are depressive disorders caused by psychosocial stressors at work?: A systematic review with metaanalysis",
abstract = "In the last decade, many studies have examined associations between poor psychosocial work environment and depression. We aimed to assess the evidence for a causal association between psychosocial factors at work and depressive disorders. We conducted a systematic literature search from 1980 to March 2019. For all exposures other than night and shift work and long working hours, we limited our selection of studies to those with a longitudinal design. We extracted available risk estimates for each of 19 psychosocial exposures, from which we calculated summary risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (PROSPERO, identifier CRD42019130266). 54 studies were included, addressing 19 exposures and 11 different measures of depression. Only data on depressive episodes were sufficient for evaluation. Heterogeneity of exposure definitions and ascertainment, outcome measures, risk parameterization and effect contrasts limited the validity of meta-analyses. Summary risk estimates were above unity for all but one exposure, and below 1.60 for all but another. Outcome measures were liable to high rates of false positives, control of relevant confounding was mostly inadequate, and common method bias was likely in a large proportion of studies. The combination of resulting biases is likely to have inflated observed effect estimates. When statistical uncertainties and the potential for bias and confounding are taken into account, it is not possible to conclude with confidence that any of the psychosocial exposures at work included in this review is either likely or unlikely to cause depressive episodes or recurrent depressive disorders.",
keywords = "Causality, Common method bias, Depressive disorders, Diagnostic misclassification, Psychosocial stressors at work",
author = "Sigurd Mikkelsen and David Coggon and Andersen, {Johan Hviid} and Patricia Casey and Flachs, {Esben Meulengracht} and Kolstad, {Henrik Albert} and Ole Mors and Bonde, {Jens Peter}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021, The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
year = "2021",
month = may,
doi = "10.1007/s10654-021-00725-9",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "479--496",
journal = "European Journal of Epidemiology",
issn = "0393-2990",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are depressive disorders caused by psychosocial stressors at work?

T2 - A systematic review with metaanalysis

AU - Mikkelsen, Sigurd

AU - Coggon, David

AU - Andersen, Johan Hviid

AU - Casey, Patricia

AU - Flachs, Esben Meulengracht

AU - Kolstad, Henrik Albert

AU - Mors, Ole

AU - Bonde, Jens Peter

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/5

Y1 - 2021/5

N2 - In the last decade, many studies have examined associations between poor psychosocial work environment and depression. We aimed to assess the evidence for a causal association between psychosocial factors at work and depressive disorders. We conducted a systematic literature search from 1980 to March 2019. For all exposures other than night and shift work and long working hours, we limited our selection of studies to those with a longitudinal design. We extracted available risk estimates for each of 19 psychosocial exposures, from which we calculated summary risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (PROSPERO, identifier CRD42019130266). 54 studies were included, addressing 19 exposures and 11 different measures of depression. Only data on depressive episodes were sufficient for evaluation. Heterogeneity of exposure definitions and ascertainment, outcome measures, risk parameterization and effect contrasts limited the validity of meta-analyses. Summary risk estimates were above unity for all but one exposure, and below 1.60 for all but another. Outcome measures were liable to high rates of false positives, control of relevant confounding was mostly inadequate, and common method bias was likely in a large proportion of studies. The combination of resulting biases is likely to have inflated observed effect estimates. When statistical uncertainties and the potential for bias and confounding are taken into account, it is not possible to conclude with confidence that any of the psychosocial exposures at work included in this review is either likely or unlikely to cause depressive episodes or recurrent depressive disorders.

AB - In the last decade, many studies have examined associations between poor psychosocial work environment and depression. We aimed to assess the evidence for a causal association between psychosocial factors at work and depressive disorders. We conducted a systematic literature search from 1980 to March 2019. For all exposures other than night and shift work and long working hours, we limited our selection of studies to those with a longitudinal design. We extracted available risk estimates for each of 19 psychosocial exposures, from which we calculated summary risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (PROSPERO, identifier CRD42019130266). 54 studies were included, addressing 19 exposures and 11 different measures of depression. Only data on depressive episodes were sufficient for evaluation. Heterogeneity of exposure definitions and ascertainment, outcome measures, risk parameterization and effect contrasts limited the validity of meta-analyses. Summary risk estimates were above unity for all but one exposure, and below 1.60 for all but another. Outcome measures were liable to high rates of false positives, control of relevant confounding was mostly inadequate, and common method bias was likely in a large proportion of studies. The combination of resulting biases is likely to have inflated observed effect estimates. When statistical uncertainties and the potential for bias and confounding are taken into account, it is not possible to conclude with confidence that any of the psychosocial exposures at work included in this review is either likely or unlikely to cause depressive episodes or recurrent depressive disorders.

KW - Causality

KW - Common method bias

KW - Depressive disorders

KW - Diagnostic misclassification

KW - Psychosocial stressors at work

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101449134&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10654-021-00725-9

DO - 10.1007/s10654-021-00725-9

M3 - Review

C2 - 33580479

VL - 36

SP - 479

EP - 496

JO - European Journal of Epidemiology

JF - European Journal of Epidemiology

SN - 0393-2990

IS - 5

ER -

ID: 63752500