Epidemiologic evidence for work stress as a risk factor for coronary heart disease is mostly based on a single measure of stressful work known as job strain, a combination of high demands and low job control. We examined whether a complementary stress measure that assesses an imbalance between efforts spent at work and rewards received predicted coronary heart disease. This multicohort study (the “IPD-Work” consortium) was based on harmonized individual-level data from 11 European prospective cohort studies. Stressful work in 90,164 men and women without coronary heart disease at baseline was assessed by validated effort–reward imbalance and job strain questionnaires. We defined incident coronary heart disease as the first nonfatal myocardial infarction or coronary death. Study-specific estimates were pooled by random effects meta-analysis. At baseline, 31.7% of study members reported effort–reward imbalance at work and 15.9% reported job strain. During a mean follow-up of 9.8 years, 1,078 coronary events were recorded. After adjustment for potential confounders, a hazard ratio of 1.16 (95% confidence interval, 1.00–1.35) was observed for effort–reward imbalance compared with no imbalance. The hazard ratio was 1.16 (1.01–1.34) for having either effort–reward imbalance or job strain and 1.41 (1.12–1.76) for having both these stressors compared to having neither effort–reward imbalance nor job strain. Individuals with effort–reward imbalance at work have an increased risk of coronary heart disease, and this appears to be independent of job strain experienced. These findings support expanding focus beyond just job strain in future research on work stress.

Purpose of review: The ongoing digitalization has profound consequences for work in modern economies. It is, therefore, important to investigate if digital technologies increase stress at work (i.e. ‘technostress’) and lead to impaired mental health. This article describes the concept of technostress and discusses possible risks and opportunities of digital technologies at work and their effect on mental health. Recent findings: Studies report that the use of digital technologies is associated with specific psychosocial demands (e.g. higher workload, complexity, conflicts between work and other life domains) and resulting psychobiological stress reactions. It is, however, still unclear if this kind of technostress causes mental disorders because epidemiological studies are missing. Yet, an increasing number of studies suggests that well designed digital work may promote good health if it optimizes work organization or enables greater flexibility, and increases control and autonomy at work. Summary: Digitalization of work seems to have both opportunities and risks for the mental health of employees. The number of studies is currently limited and further research is necessary to describe the advantages and disadvantages more precisely.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), supported by a large number of individual experts. Evidence from previous reviews suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause depression. In this article, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from depression that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on depression (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence and mortality). We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including the WHO International Clinical Trial Registers Platform, Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CISDOC and PsycInfo. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts. We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (aged <15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of exposure to long working hours (41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35-40 h/week), on depression (prevalence, incidence and/or mortality). At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined odds ratios using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project. Twenty-two studies (all cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 109,906 participants (51,324 females) in 32 countries (as one study included multiple countries) in three WHO regions (Americas, Europe and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with a clinical diagnostic interview (four studies), interview questions about diagnosis and treatment of depression (three studies) or a validated self-administered rating scale (15 studies). The outcome was defined as incident depression in all 22 studies, with first time incident depression in 21 studies and recurrence of depression in one study. We did not identify any study on prevalence of depression or on mortality from depression. For the body of evidence for the outcome incident depression, we had serious concerns for risk of bias due to selection because of incomplete outcome data (most studies assessed depression only twice, at baseline and at a later follow-up measurement, and likely have missed cases of depression that occurred after baseline but were in remission at the time of the follow-up measurement) and due to missing information on life-time prevalence of depression before baseline measurement. Compared with working 35-40 h/week, we are uncertain about the effect on acquiring (or incidence of) depression of working 41-48 h/week (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.29, 8 studies, 49,392 participants, I² 46%, low quality of evidence); 49-54 h/week (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21, 8 studies, 49,392 participants, I² 40%, low quality of evidence); and ≥ 55 h/week (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24, 17 studies, 91,142 participants, I² 46%, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for statistically significant (P < 0.05) differences by WHO region, sex, age group and socioeconomic status. Sensitivity analyses found no statistically significant differences by outcome measurement (clinical diagnostic interview [gold standard] versus other measures) and risk of bias ("high"/"probably high" ratings in any domain versus "low"/"probably low" in all domains). We judged the existing bodies of evidence from human data as "inadequate evidence for harmfulness" for all three exposure categories, 41-48, 48-54 and ≥55 h/week, for depression prevalence, incidence and mortality; the available evidence is insufficient to assess effects of the exposure. Producing estimates of the burden of depression attributable to exposure to long working appears not evidence-based at this point. Instead, studies examining the association between long working hours and risk of depression are needed that address the limitations of the current evidence.

To assess whether an association of psychosocial stress at work with depressive symptoms among older employees is evident in a set of comparable empirical studies from Europe, North America and Asia.

Maintaining health and work ability among older employees is a primary target of national labour and social policies (NLSP) in Europe. Depression makes a significant contribution to early retirement, and chronic work-related stress is associated with elevated risks of depression. We test this latter association among older employees and explore to what extent indicators of distinct NLSP modify the association between work stress and depressive symptoms. We choose six indicators, classified in three categories: (1) investment in active labour market policies, (2) employment protection, (3) level of distributive justice. We use data from three longitudinal ageing studies (SHARE, HRS, ELSA) including 5650 men and women in 13 countries. Information on work stress (effort-reward imbalance, low work control) and depressive symptoms (CES-D, EURO-D) was obtained. Six NLSP indicators were selected from OECD databases. Associations of work stress (2004) with depressive symptoms (2006) and their modification by policy indicators were analysed using logistic multilevel models. Risk of depressive symptoms at follow-up is higher among those experiencing effort-reward imbalance (OR: 1.55 95% CI 1.27-1.89) and low control (OR: 1.46 95% CI 1.19-1.79) at work. Interaction terms indicate a modifying effect of a majority of protective NLSP indicators on the strength of associations of effort - reward imbalance with depressive symptoms. Work stress is associated with elevated risk of prospective depressive symptoms among older employees from 13 European countries. Protective labour and social policies modify the strength of these associations. If further supported findings may have important policy implications.

Numerous studies have reported an increase in mental disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the exact reasons for this development are not well understood. In this study we investigate whether pandemic-related occupational and financial changes (e.g., reduced working hours, working from home, financial losses) were associated with increased symptoms of depression and anxiety compared with the situation before the pandemic. We analyzed data from the German National Cohort (NAKO) Study. Between May and November 2020, 161 849 study participants answered questions on their mental state and social circumstances. Their responses were compared with data from the baseline survey before the pandemic (2014–2019). Linear fixed-effects models were used to determine whether individual changes in the severity of symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) or anxiety (GAD-7) were associated with occupational/ financial changes (controlling for various covariates). The prevalence of moderate or severe symptoms of depression and anxiety increased by 2.4% and 1.5%, respectively, during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the preceding years. The mean severity of the symptoms rose slightly. A pronounced increase in symptoms was observed among those who became unemployed during the pandemic (+ 1.16 points on the depression scale, 95% confidence interval [0.91; 1.41], range 0–27). Increases were also seen for reduced working hours with no short-time allowance, increased working hours, working from home, insecurity regarding employment, and financial strain. The deterioration in mental health was largely statistically explained by the occupational and financial changes investigated in the model. Depressive symptoms and anxiety disorders increased slightly in the study population during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Occupational and financial difficulties were an essential contributory factor. These strains should be taken into account both in the care of individual patients and in the planning of targeted prevention measures.