This study investigated the prevalence of suicidal behavior and psychological distress in university students across 12 nations. A total of 5,572 university students from 12 countries were surveyed about suicide ideation, suicide attempts, and psychological distress by means of a self-administered questionnaire. Almost 29% of the samples reported having contemplated suicide and 7% reported attempting suicide. Of the total sample, 51.1% scored above the General Health Questionnaire-12 ≥ 3 cut-off points, 41.6% above the GHQ-12 ≥ 4 cut-off points, and 33.8% scored above the GHQ-12 ≥ 5 cut-off points. While odds of suicide ideation were elevated in Austria and the UK, reduced ORs were detected for China, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Turkey. Similarly, while odds of suicide attempt were high in Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and to some extent in Turkey, reduced ORs were observed for Austria, China, Italy, Japan and the United States. Elevated ORs for psychological distress were seen in Japan, Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Turkey but reduced ORs were noted in Austria, China, Iran, Italy, and the United States. Psychological distress was strongly associated with reports of suicide ideation and attempts. Suicide ideation, suicide attempt, and psychological distress are common in university students but their rates vary depending on the sociocultural context. Due attention should be devoted to the mental health needs of young adults enrolled in higher educational institutions and more cross-cultural research is warranted to better understand the etiology of the observed intersocietal variations in suicidal behavior and psychological distress.

Objectives The study investigated the links between workplace measures implemented in response to COVID‐19 with mental health and work performance of employees in Japan. Methods This was a cross‐sectional study of a sample from a cohort study of full‐time employees. Participants (n = 1448) completed an online self‐report questionnaire on March 19‐22, 2020. Multiple linear regression was conducted to ascertain their fear of and worry associated with COVID‐19, psychological distress, and work performance. Results The number of workplace measures correlated positively with respondents' fear of and worry associated with COVID‐19 (adjusted standardized β = 0.123, P < .001), negatively with psychological distress and positively with work performance (adjusted standardized β = −0.068, P = .032; adjusted standardized β = 0.101, P = .002; respectively). Conclusions Workplace measures may promote and maintain the mental health and work performance of employees during the COVID‐19 epidemic. The positive association between the number of measures and fear and worry about COVID‐19 may reflect increased awareness about COVID‐19 among employees resulted from taking the measures.

Objectives This study aimed to compare the longitudinal change of the psychological distress of healthcare workers (HCWs) with non-HCWs during the repeated outbreaks of the COVID-19 in Japan. Methods The data were retrieved from the Employee Cohort Study in the Covid-19 pandemic in Japan study. An online survey was conducted on March 2020 (T1), on May 2020 (T2), on August 2020 (T3), and on November 2020 (T4). Psychological distress was measured by the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire. A mixed-model repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted as an indicator of the group differences. Results A total sample of analysis was n = 996 (HCWs, n = 111; non-HCWs, n = 885). HCWs consisted of physicians/nurses/midwives and other HCWs (eg, pharmacists, clinical laboratory technicians) in the clinical settings (n = 19; 17% and n = 61; 55%, respectively), and HCWs not working in the clinical settings (n = 31; 28%). Being HCWs were associated with a significant increase in psychological distress from T1 to T2, T3 and T4 (P = .001, P = .002, P < .001; respectively). Conclusions The mental health of HCWs deteriorated through the COVID-19 outbreaks compared with non-HCWs. HCWs are continuously the important targets to provide mental health support.

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.

Measuring Workplace Bullying: Reliability and Validity of the Japanese Version of the Negative Acts Questionnaire: Kanami Tsuno, et al. Japan Society for the Promotion of ScienceObjectives: Workplace bullying is increasingly being recognized as a serious problem within the work environment. Previous studies in European countries have reported the prevalence of workplace bullying and its association with poor mental health, using the Negative Acts Questionnaire‐Revised (NAQ‐R: Einarsen & Hoel, 2001), but there have been very few studies in Japan. The authors translated the 22‐item NAQ‐R into the Japanese language and examined the internal consistency reliability and concurrent and construct validity, including factor‐based validity, of this scale in a sample of Japanese civil servants.Methods: A total of 830 males and 796 females were surveyed, using anonymous questionnaires including the NAQ‐R, Leymann Inventory of Psychological Terror (LIPT), and scales for interpersonal relations at work and psychological distress (response rate, 46.7%).Results: Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the internal consistency reliability of the NAQ‐R were high (0.91–0.95) for males and females. Workplace bullying measured by the NAQ‐R was strongly associated with that measured by the LIPT and other scales on workplace bullying. The NAQ‐R was associated with high psychological distress, high intragroup and intergroup conflict, low supervisor and coworker support, and low interactional justice, as expected. Although three factors were extracted, this findings differed slightly from the factor structure previously reported (Einarsen et al., 2009). However, Factor 1 explained most of the variance, indicating that a one factor structure fitted the data better.Conclusion: The present study showed acceptable levels of reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the NAQ‐R among Japanese civil servants.

Bullying in the workplace is an increasingly recognized threat to employee health. We sought to test three hypotheses related to the determinants of workplace bullying: power distance at work; safety climate; and frustration related to perceived social inequality. A questionnaire survey was administered to a nationally representative community-based sample of 5,000 residents in Japan aged 20–60 years. The questionnaire included questions about employment, occupation, company size, education, household income, and subjective social status (SSS). We inquired about both the witnessing and personal experience of workplace bullying during the past 30 days. Among 2,384 respondents, data were analyzed from 1,546 workers. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to examine the social determinants of workplace bullying. Six percent and 15 percent of the total sample reported experiencing or witnessing workplace bullying, respectively. After adjusting for gender and age, temporary employees (Odds Ratio [OR]: 2.45 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.03–5.85]), junior high school graduates (OR: 2.62 [95%CI: 1.01–6.79]), workers with lowest household income (OR: 4.13 [95%CI:1.58–10.8]), and workers in the lowest SSS stratum (OR: 4.21 [95%CI:1.66–10.7]) were at increased risk of experiencing workplace bullying. When all variables were entered simultaneously in the model, a significant inverse association was observed between higher SSS and experiencing bullying (p = 0.002). Similarly in terms of witnessing bullying; SSS was significantly inversely associated (p = 0.017) while temporary employees reported a significantly higher risk of witnessing bullying compared to permanent workers (OR: 2.25 [95%CI:1.04 to 4.87]). The significant association between SSS and experiencing/witnessing workplace bullying supports the frustration hypothesis. The power distance hypothesis was also partly supported by the finding that temporary employees experienced a higher prevalence of workplace bullying.