Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34281047›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

How to Use Questionnaire Results in Psychosocial Risk Assessment: Calculating Risks for Health Impairment in Psychosocial Work Risk Assessment.

Jan Dettmers, Christiane R Stempel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Jan DettmersDepartment of Work and Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Hagen, 58084 Hagen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8653-9829
Christiane R StempelDepartment of Work and Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Hagen, 58084 Hagen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychosocial risk questionnaires are common instruments in occupational safety and health promotion. Organizations use psychosocial risk questionnaires to obtain an economic overview of psychological job stressors and job resources. However, the procedures to assess if a result for a given workplace group is critical and calls for further action differ significantly and are often based on an arbitrary rule of thumb instead of empirically based evaluations. This article presents a method to translate questionnaire results into risk values for the occurrence of health impairment. We test this method on a dataset including the job stressors, job resources, and emotional exhaustion of 4210 employees from different industries. We applied logistic regression analysis to calculate the risks for impaired psychological health, indicated by high values of the burnout indicator emotional exhaustion. The results indicate significantly different health impairment risks (probabilities) for different scores on the job stressors and job resources scales as well as for scale score combinations. The risk values can be used to define cutoff values between high- and low-risk workplaces that are empirically based on stressor-strain relationships and are easily understandable by all stakeholders in the psychosocial risk assessment process, including laypersons.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalOccupational HealthHumansJob SatisfactionRisk AssessmentStress, PsychologicalSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkplacecutoff valuesjob resourcesjob stressorspsychological health impairmentpsychosocial risk assessmentquestionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34281047
PMCPMC8296915

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.