4.3 Article

Synergistic interaction effect between job control and social support at work on general psychological distress

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-010-0554-y

关键词

Swedish; Job demands; Psychosocial; Work; Synergy index

资金

  1. Swedish Council for Social Research [FAS 2003-0582]
  2. Medical Faculty at Lund University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Little is known about the interaction between job control and social support at work on common mental disorders. To examine whether there is a synergistic interaction effect between job control and social support at work on general psychological distress and whether it differs by the level of job demands. Methods About 1,940 male and female workers from the Malmo Shoulder and Neck Study were chosen for this cross-sectional study. Job control, social support at work, and job demands were measured by the Swedish version of the Job Content Questionnaire, and general psychological distress was assessed by the General Health Questionnaire. Results A significant excessive risk increase for general psychological distress was observed when workers had both low job control and low social support at work in both men and women. The synergistic effect was stronger in women, when job demands were low (Rothman's synergy index was 2.16 vs. 1.51 when job demands were high). However, in male workers, while a strong synergistic effect between job control and social support at work was found when job demands were low (synergy index was 9.25), there was an antagonistic effect when job demands were high (synergy index was 0.52). Conclusions There was a synergistic interaction effect between job control and social support at work on general psychological distress, but the synergistic effect or its effect size differed by the level of job demands and gender. An atomic, additive approach to the risk assessment of the psychosocial work characteristics on common mental disorders could be misleading or lead to a risk underestimation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据