ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2019
Common mental disorders through the eyes of German employees: attributed relevance of work-related causes and prevention measures assessed by a standardised survey.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of Cardiometabolic Abnormalities Among Male Licensed Pilots and Community Health Examination Participants in China: A Cross-Sectional Comparison.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- A comparative study of gender differences in healthy office building strategies.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Mental Health Applications for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Common Mental Disorders: Attitudes of German Employees.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Cross-Cultural Comparison of Mental Health Between German and South African Employees: Shame, Self-Compassion, Work Engagement, and Work Motivation.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
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
purposeCommon mental disorders (CMDs) are becoming increasingly relevant in the working world. Numbers of risk factors have been confirmed by mostly correlative cross-sectional studies. Comprehensive and effective prevention is urgently needed. There is little knowledge about employees' own perceptions on causes of CMDs and prevention measures. Therefore, a survey was conducted in 2016.
methodsA standardised instrument was developed for an online survey in a commercial access panel, targeted employees in different job types. We assessed two outcomes: perceived relevance of (1) work-related demands to the development of CMDs, and (2) prevention approaches in the workplace and on individual and societal levels. Possible predictive aspects were analysed exploratively by multivariate linear regression analysis.
resultsThe response rate was 75% (n = 610). Job types were categorised as "blue", "grey" and "white-collar" workers (n = 193, 169, 248). The majority of respondents rated both outcomes consistently as "quite" or "very relevant"; societal prevention strategies were more relevant for non-white-collar workers. Perceived relevance of individual predisposition to develop a CMD was the strongest predictor for both outcomes, indicating the perception that people with higher personal vulnerability might suffer a higher strain from work-related risk factors than others.
conclusionWe assume that participants in our survey judged the relevance of work-related causes of CMDs independently of their own workload. The perceived relevance of prevention measures in different areas is consistent with official guidelines. A possible selection bias due to characteristics of access panel collectives and own direct or indirect experiences with CMD should be critically questioned.
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.