ArticleBMJ open2022
A new ranking index to identify the work-related psychosocial factors most impacting mental health: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesIn modern professional life, mental health prevention and promotion have become a major challenge for decision-makers. Devising appropriate actions requires better understanding the role played by each work-related psychosocial factor (WPSF). The objective of this study was to present a relevant tool to hierarchise WPSFs that jointly takes into account their
designA cross-sectional study was conducted in March 2018 among 3200 French workers which are representative of the French working population.
settingFrance.
participantsIndividuals aged 18-80 years who declared currently having a job (even a part-time job) whatever their occupation or status (employee or self-employed) were eligible. We excluded students, unemployed individuals, housewives/husbands and retired people. The mental health level was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire-28 and 44 items were gathered from theoretical models of WPSFs. We assessed two distinct multivariate methods for calculating WPSF importance: (1) weifila (weighted first last) method in a linear regression context and (2) random forests in a non-linear context. Both methods were adjusted on individual, health and job characteristics.
resultsThe WPSF rankings obtained with the two methods to calculate importance are strongly consistent with each other (correlation coefficient=0.88). We highlighted nine WPSFs that are ranked high by both methods. In particular, irrespective of the chosen method, lack of communication, lack of social and hierarchy support and personal-professional life imbalance, emotional demands at work and dissatisfaction with the compensation received came out as top-ranking WPSFs.
conclusionsA total of nine WPSFs were identified as key for decision-making. The easy-to-use tools we propose can help decision-makers identify priority WPSFs and design effective strategies to promote mental health in the workplace.
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.