Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35123449›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2022

Work environment risk factors causing day-to-day stress in occupational settings: a systematic review.

Junoš Lukan, Larissa Bolliger, Nele S Pauwels, Mitja Luštrek, Dirk De Bacquer, Els Clays

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Anxiety disorders: a cross-sectional study of clinical and biological associations.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Junoš Lukan *Department of Intelligent Systems, Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Larissa Bolliger *Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, 9000, Belgium. Larissa.Bolliger@UGent.be.
Nele S PauwelsKnowledge Centre for Health Ghent, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Mitja LuštrekDepartment of Intelligent Systems, Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova cesta 39, Ljubljana, 1000, Slovenia.
Dirk De BacquerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Els ClaysDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, Ghent, 9000, Belgium.
Ghent University · BEJožef Stefan International Postgraduate School · SIGhent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile chronic workplace stress is known to be associated with health-related outcomes like mental and cardiovascular diseases, research about day-to-day occupational stress is limited. This systematic review includes studies assessing stress exposures as work environment risk factors and stress outcomes, measured via self-perceived questionnaires and physiological stress detection. These measures needed to be assessed repeatedly or continuously via Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) or similar methods carried out in real-world work environments, to be included in this review. The objective was to identify work environment risk factors causing day-to-day stress.

methodsThe search strategies were applied in seven databases resulting in 11833 records after deduplication, of which 41 studies were included in a qualitative synthesis. Associations were evaluated by correlational analyses.

resultsThe most commonly measured work environment risk factor was work intensity, while stress was most often framed as an affective response. Measures from these two dimensions were also most frequently correlated with each other and most of their correlation coefficients were statistically significant, making work intensity a major risk factor for day-to-day workplace stress.

conclusionsThis review reveals a diversity in methodological approaches in data collection and data analysis. More studies combining self-perceived stress exposures and outcomes with physiological measures are warranted.

Indexed as

Occupational StressEcological Momentary AssessmentHumansRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesWorkplaceDay-to-day stressEcological Momentary Assessment (EMA)Stress outcomesSystematic literature reviewWork environment risk factors

Identifiers

PMID35123449
PMCPMC8818147
OpenAlexW4212920894

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.