It is unknown whether the relation between job strain and depression reflects causal characteristics of the working environment or reporting bias. The authors investigated reporting bias by analyzing individual versus work-unit measures of job strain and the risk of depressive symptoms (n = 287) and a diagnosis of depression (n = 97) among 4,291 employees within 378 work units in Aarhus, Denmark, 2007. All participants reported psychological demands and decision latitude, and the authors estimated mean values for each work unit. The odds ratios predicting depressive symptoms or a diagnosis of depression for the highest versus the lowest levels of individual, self-reported high psychological demands and low decision latitude were significantly increased above 2.5. When participants were classified by the work-unit mean levels, these associations were substantially smaller. For depressive symptoms, the odds ratios were 1.49 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88, 2.53) and 1.08 (95% CI: 0.84, 1.39), respectively, for psychological demands and decision latitude. For a diagnosis of depression, the odds ratios were 1.33 (95% CI: 0.57, 3.09) and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.68, 1.56), respectively, for psychological demands and decision latitude. These findings indicate that reporting bias inflates associations between job strain and the occurrence of depression, if studies rely on individual self-reports.

No abstract

Numerous studies have demonstrated strong associations between workplace bullying and health problems, but we do not know if symptoms persist as workplace bullying is resolved. In this prospective study of some 7500 employees, in the majority of cases, high rates of living alone, poor self-rated health and depressive symptoms tended to persist even when bullying was alleviated.Affiliation:

Frequent self-labeled bullying predicts development of depression but a work environment with high proportion of employees witnessing bullying does not.

No abstract

BackgroundLow participation in population-based follow-up studies addressing psychosocial risk factors may cause biased estimation of health risk but the issue has seldom been examined. We compared risk estimates for selected health outcomes among respondents and the entire source population.MethodsIn a Danish cohort study of associations between psychosocial characteristics of the work environment and mental health, the source population of public service workers comprised 10,036 employees in 502 work units of which 4,489 participated (participation rate 45%). Data on the psychosocial work environment were obtained for each work unit by calculating the average of the employee self-reports. The average values were assigned all employees and non-respondent at the work unit. Outcome data on sick leave and prescription of antidepressant medication during the follow-up period (1.4.2007-31.12.2008) was obtained by linkage to national registries.ResultsRespondents differed at baseline from non-respondents by gender, age, employment status, sick leave and hospitalization for affective disorders. However, risk estimates for sick leave and prescription of antidepressant medication, during follow-up, based on the subset of participants, did only differ marginally from risk estimates based upon the entire population.ConclusionsWe found no indications that low participation at baseline distorts the estimates of associations between the work unit level of psychosocial work environment and mental health outcomes during follow-up. These results may not be valid for other exposures or outcomes.

Our results indicate that a work environment characterised by low levels of justice is a risk factor for depression.

Recent studies suggest that the angiogenic cytokine vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is involved in the pathogenesis of depression. However, only a few studies have investigated serum VEGF levels in individuals with depression, or the possible association between genetic variants within the VEGF gene and depression. The purpose of the present study was to investigate differences between serum VEGF levels in individuals with depression vs. control individuals, and associations between genetic markers located within VEGF and depression. In addition, determinants of the serum VEGF levels were identified. One-hundred and fifty-five depressed subjects and 280 controls were included in the study. All individuals returned a questionnaire and participated in a semi-structured diagnostic interview. Eleven single nucleotide polymorphisms were successfully analysed. VEGF levels were measured in serum by immunoassay and independent determinants of the serum VEGF level were assessed by generalized linear models.The main findings were that depression, severity of depression, previous depressive episodes, age and body mass index (BMI) were associated with higher serum VEGF levels. The genetic marker rs10434 was significantly associated with depression after correction for multiple testing, but not with the serum VEGF level. Our final model included depression and BMI as predictors of serum VEGF levels. Our study suggests a role for circulating serum VEGF in depression. Furthermore, our data also demonstrate that other factors than a diagnosis of depression influence the serum VEGF level. The importance of these factors should be emphasized when studies are compared.