ArticleJournal of occupational health
Industry differences in psychological distress and distress-related productivity loss: A cross-sectional study of Australian workers.
Article in Journal of occupational health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Is the Role of Industry-Based Intermediary Organisations in Supporting Workplace Mental Health in Australia? A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Workforce Psychological Distress and Absenteeism in Australia: The Correlates of Industry, Age, and Gender.Asia-Pacific journal of public health · 2025Article
- Industry differences in psychological distress and distress-related productivity loss: A cross-sectional study of Australian workers.Journal of occupational healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis research uses Australian survey data to identify industries with high rates of psychological distress, and to estimate productivity impacts in the form of work loss and cutback days.
methodsAnalyzing cross-sectional data from the 2017/2018 National Health Survey, industry prevalence of psychological distress (Kessler Screening Scale) was compared using ordered logistic regression. Productivity outcomes were distress-related work loss days and work cutback days in the previous 4 weeks. Losses were analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial regression.
resultsThe sample consisted of 9073 employed workers [4497 males (49.6%), 4576 females (50.4%)]. Compared to the reference industry, Health, the odds of very high distress for males were highest in Information media and telecommunications (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2-4.6) and Administrative and support services (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.2-5.0), while for females the odds were highest in Accommodation and food services (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.5-2.8) followed by Retail (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.0). Very high distress was associated excess productivity losses. Industry of occupation did not impact on productivity loss over and above distress.
conclusionsSubstantial psychological distress was reported which impacted on productivity. High-risk industries included Information media and telecommunications, Accommodation and food services, and Retail.
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.