Psychosocial work exposures and health outcomes: A meta-review of 72 literature reviews with meta-analysis

What are the links between psychosocial work exposures and health outcomes? Pretty substantial according to this 2021 meta-analysis.

72 reviews were included.

They found:

·        “The associations between psychosocial work factors and cardiovascular diseases and mental disorders were in general significant, and the magnitude of these associations was stronger for mental disorders than for cardiovascular diseases”

·        “Based on high-quality reviews, significant associations were found between job/high strain and long working hours as exposures and coronary heart diseases, (ischemic) stroke, and depression as outcomes”

·        “This meta-review of 72 reviews showed that the associations were mainly significant between psychosocial work exposures and cardiovascular diseases (CHD and stroke) and mental disorders, particularly depression, based on the highest quality reviews”

·        “The magnitude of the associations was a little stronger for mental disorders than for cardiovascular diseases”

·        “significant pooled estimates for job/high strain and long working hours in association with the 3 outcomes of CHD, (ischemic) stroke, and depression, as well as for effort-reward imbalance with CHD, and job insecurity with depression”

I’ve attached one table of the relative risks for CHD, but there’s heaps more in the paper if this interests you.

Ref: Niedhammer, I., Bertrais, S., & Witt, K. (2021). Psychosocial work exposures and health outcomes: a meta-review of 72 literature reviews with meta-analysis. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 47(7), 489.

Study link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504166/pdf/SJWEH-47-489.pdf

LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/benhutchinson2_what-are-the-links-between-psychosocial-work-activity-7211922807146860545-pBYx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

One thought on “Psychosocial work exposures and health outcomes: A meta-review of 72 literature reviews with meta-analysis

Leave a comment