Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33200794›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2021

Long working hours and psychiatric treatment: A Danish follow-up study.

Harald Hannerz, Karen Albertsen, Martin Lindhardt Nielsen, Anne Helene Garde

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Harald HannerzNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Lersø Parkallé 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. hha@nfa.dk.
Karen Albertsen
Martin Lindhardt Nielsen
Anne Helene Garde
National Research Centre for the Working Environment · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to estimate prospective associations between long working hours and (i) redeemed prescriptions for psychotropic drugs and (ii) psychiatric hospital treatment due to mood, anxiety or stress-related disease, among full-time employees in Denmark. Methods Full-time employees who participated in the Danish Labor Force Survey sometime in the period 2000-2013 (N=131 321] were followed for up to five years in national registers for redeemed prescriptions for psychotropic drugs and psychiatric hospital treatment due to mood, anxiety or stress-related disease. Rate ratios (RR) were estimated for 41-48 versus 32-40 and >48 versus 32-40 working hours a week. The analyses were controlled for sex, age, night shift work, calendar time of the interview and socioeconomic status (SES). Prevalent cases were excluded in primary analyses. Results The RR for psychotropic drugs were estimated at 0.94 [99% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.01] for 41-48 versus 32-40 working hours a week and 1.08 (99% CI 0.99-1.18) for >48 versus 32-40 working hours a week. The corresponding RR for psychiatric hospital treatments were estimated at 0.90 (95% CI 0.75-1.08) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.76-1.21). We did not find any statistically significant interaction between weekly working hours and age, sex, SES or night shift work. Conclusion Long working hours as they occur in in the general working population of Denmark are not an important predictor of mental ill health.

Indexed as

Shift Work ScheduleDenmarkEmploymentFollow-Up StudiesHumansRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID33200794
PMCPMC8126440
OpenAlexW3102074823

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.