ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2016
Screening for depression in the occupational health setting.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a prediction model for the depressive symptom risk in commercial airline pilots.The EPMA journal · 2025Article
- Development and Construct Validity of the Work Instability Scale for People With Common Mental Disorders in a Sample of Depressed and Anxious Workers: A Rasch Analysis.Rehabilitation process and outcome · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe cost of workplace absenteeism and presenteeism due to depression in the USA is substantial.
aimsTo assess the frequency of depression and its impact at the point of care in an occupational health (OH) practice.
methodsPatients presenting to an OH practice completed a standardized depression screening tool and were compared to an unscreened group in the same clinic. Respondents with a nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score >15 and untreated for depression were referred for further evaluation per usual practice. A comparison group of unscreened patients were selected from the same clinic from 1 year prior and records were reviewed for evidence of prior depression, treatment and outcomes. After 1 year, frequency of depression, PHQ-9 scoring for screened patients, days absent from work, days on restricted duties and permanent restrictions were recorded for both groups.
resultsTwo hundred and five patients were screened for depression. Screening was associated with increased frequency of a diagnosis of current depression (30 versus 4%; P < 0.05). Screening was associated with similar rates of absenteeism but lower number of days on restricted duties (97 versus 159 days; P < 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, history of and treatment for depression, screening was associated with lower odds of being on work restrictions [odds ratio (OR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.78] or permanent restrictions (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.23-0.52).
conclusionsDepression was common in this OH practice. Screening for depression, with appropriate recognition and referral, may reduce time for employed patients on restricted duties and permanent restrictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.