Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34328523›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2021

[Psychosocial stress at work and disease risks : Scientific evidence and implications for practice].

Johannes Siegrist

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Internist, 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. SGLT1/2 as the potential biomarkers of renal damage under ApoeFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
    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

1 author.

Johannes SiegristLife Science Center, Merowingerplatz 1a, 40225, Düsseldorf, Deutschland. siegrist@uni-duesseldorf.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The modern working world makes a significant contribution to the development of diseases, which goes far beyond the field of traditional occupational diseases. Despite technological progress and successful medical healthcare, distinct widely disseminated psychosocial working conditions contribute to a remarkable burden of work-related diseases. By inducing chronic activation of psychobiological stress reactions, they promote the development of various physical and mental disorders. To identify "toxic" constellations within the complexity and variability of modern work environments, a theoretical model is required. It aims at delineating core critical elements at a level of generalization that enables their identification in a wide range of occupations. This article describes the leading theoretical work stress models in the international research and it demonstrates their contribution towards explaining elevated disease risks among employees. Research based on prospective epidemiologic cohort studies focused specifically on depressive disorders and coronary heart diseases. Two theoretical concepts received particular attention, the demand-control and the effort-reward imbalance models. Results derived from meta-analyses indicate increased relative risks of these disorders in the range of 35-80% among those exposed to these stressors compared to nonexposed groups. Finally, practical implications of this scientific evidence for worksite screening and health promoting activities are discussed.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersOccupational DiseasesHumansProspective StudiesRewardStress, PsychologicalCoronary heart diseaseDemand-control modelDepressionEffort-reward imbalance modelHealth promotion

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.