Bonde J P E
Department of Occupational Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Noerrebrogade 44, Building 2C, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
Occup Environ Med. 2008 Jul;65(7):438-45. doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.038430. Epub 2008 Apr 16.
Major depression is a leading cause of psychiatric morbidity and may be influenced by psychosocial factors in the workplace, although evidence so far remains circumstantial. This paper reviews follow-up studies addressing the risk of major depression and depressive symptoms relative to psychosocial stressors in the working environment and evaluates the evidence for causality.
Follow-up studies were identified by a systematic Medline search combining search terms for the outcome and measures of job-related psychosocial factors. The quality of the studies was evaluated using 22 criteria related to their potential for bias and confounding.
Sixteen company or population-based studies including some 63,000 employees were identified. Validated multi-item scales were used to measure perceived psychosocial stressors in most of the studies. Major depression was defined by clinical criteria in seven studies and by symptom scales in another seven. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 13 years. The prevalence of depressive disorder varied substantially, suggesting a high degree of study heterogeneity. The adjusted relative risk for onset of a major depressive episode according to job stressors ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 in 44 of 61 reported associations with various psychosocial factor dimensions. Associations were strongest and most consistent for job strain defined as high demand and low decision latitude among men. Most studies shared common limitations such as lack of independent measures of exposure and outcome and potential confounding. Although a meta-analysis would technically be possible, heterogeneity across studies evidenced by variation in the prevalence of depression made this unfeasible.
This review provides consistent findings that perception of adverse psychosocial factors in the workplace is related to an elevated risk of subsequent depressive symptoms or major depressive episode; however, methodological limitations preclude causal inference. Studies implementing objective measures of job stressors or independent outcome ascertainment are warranted.
重度抑郁症是精神疾病发病的主要原因,可能受到工作场所心理社会因素的影响,尽管目前证据仍不确凿。本文回顾了关于工作环境中与心理社会压力源相关的重度抑郁症和抑郁症状风险的随访研究,并评估了因果关系的证据。
通过系统检索Medline来确定随访研究,将结果的检索词与工作相关心理社会因素的测量方法相结合。使用与偏倚和混杂可能性相关的22条标准评估研究质量。
确定了16项基于公司或人群的研究,涉及约63000名员工。大多数研究使用经过验证的多项目量表来测量感知到的心理社会压力源。7项研究根据临床标准定义重度抑郁症,另外7项则根据症状量表定义。随访期从1年到13年不等。抑郁症患病率差异很大,表明研究具有高度异质性。在报告的61项与各种心理社会因素维度的关联中,44项中根据工作压力源发生重度抑郁发作的调整相对风险范围为0.5至1.5。对于男性中定义为高需求和低决策自由度的工作压力,关联最强且最一致。大多数研究都有共同的局限性,如缺乏暴露和结果的独立测量以及潜在的混杂因素。尽管从技术上来说可以进行荟萃分析,但抑郁症患病率差异所证明的研究异质性使得这不可行。
本综述提供了一致的结果,即工作场所中不良心理社会因素的感知与随后出现抑郁症状或重度抑郁发作的风险升高有关;然而,方法学上的局限性排除了因果推断。有必要开展实施工作压力源客观测量或独立结果确定的研究。