Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28178966›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2017

The contribution from psychological, social, and organizational work factors to risk of disability retirement: a systematic review with meta-analyses.

Stein Knardahl, Håkon A Johannessen, Tom Sterud, Mikko Härmä, Reiner Rugulies, Jorma Seitsamo, Vilhelm Borg

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Work above shoulder level and shoulder complaints: a systematic review.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Job control and working life expectancy in Sweden.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The meaning of decision latitude in registered nurses' night work.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Stein KnardahlDepartment of work psychology and physiology, National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway. Stein.Knardahl@stami.no.ORCID 0000-0002-7300-8519
Håkon A JohannessenDepartment of Occupational Health Surveillance, National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway.
Tom SterudDepartment of Occupational Health Surveillance, National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway.
Mikko HärmäFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.
Reiner RuguliesNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jorma SeitsamoFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland.
Vilhelm BorgNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious studies indicate that psychological, social, and organizational factors at work contribute to health, motivation, absence from work, and functional ability. The objective of the study was to assess the current state of knowledge of the contribution of psychological, social, and organizational factors to disability retirement by a systematic review and meta-analyses.

methodsData sources: A systematic literature search for studies of retirement due to disability in Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO was performed. Reference lists of relevant articles were hand-searched for additional studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Internal validity was assessed independently by two referees with a detailed checklist for sources of bias. Conclusions were drawn based on studies with acceptable quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We calculated combined effect estimates by means of averaged associations (Risk ratios) across samples, weighting observed associations by the study's sample size. Thirty-nine studies of accepted quality were found, 37 of which from the Nordic countries.

resultsThere was moderate evidence for the role of low control (supported by weighted average RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.21-1.61) and moderate evidence for the combination of high demands and low control (although weighted average was RR = 1.45; 95% CI = 0.96-2.19) as predictors of disability retirement. There were no major systematic differences in findings between the highest rated and the lowest rated studies that passed the criterion for adequate quality. There was limited evidence for downsizing, organizational change, lack of employee development and supplementary training, repetitive work tasks, effort-reward imbalance to increase risk of disability pension. Very limited evidence was found for job demands, evening or night work, and low social support from ones superior.

conclusionsPsychological and organizational factors at work contribute to disability retirement with the most robust evidence for the role of work control. We recommend the measurement of specific exposure factors in future studies.

Indexed as

Organizational CultureSocial SupportHealth StatusHumansMental DisordersMotivationPersons with DisabilitiesRetirementRiskScandinavian and Nordic CountriesDisability pensionDisability retirementOrganizationalPsychologicalPsychosocialShiftSocialSystematic reviewWork

Identifiers

PMID28178966
PMCPMC5299735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.