The prevalence of workaholism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

The present study represents the first meta-analysis and systematic review on the prevalence of workaholism. It also investigated if sample size, representativeness, and instrument moderated the prevalence estimates. The analysis was pre-registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023395794). We searched Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsychInfo. BASE, MedNar, NYAM, OPENGREY, OpenMD and included the first 200 searches on Google scholar as gray literature [search string: “(workaholi* OR “work addict*”) AND (prevalence* OR incident* OR frequen* OR cut-off OR epidem*)]. The search yielded 42 studies to be included, in addition to 11 studies identified using other methods. Two independent raters went through the searches, extracted information and evaluated risk of bias, resulting in agreement ratings of 92.4%, 84.9%, and 87.0%, respectively. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting original data on the prevalence of workaholism written in any European language. Criteria which led to exclusion were conference abstracts, usage of secondary data, purposive sampling of workaholics, qualitative research and pre-determined cut-off based on distribution. Risk of bias of the included articles was evaluated through a checklist. Most of the included studies had a moderate risk of bias. Of the 663 records identified, a total of 53 studies were included, 10 of these being nationally representative with all studies in total amounting to 71,625 participants from 23 countries. The pooled workaholism prevalence was 15.2% (95% CI = 12.4–18.5), which was adjusted to 14.1% (95% CI = 11.2–17.6) following a trim-and-fill adjustment for publication bias. The meta-regression revealed that studies with representative samples reported lower prevalences than those based on non-representative samples, and that studies based on the Dutch Work Addiction Scale yielded higher prevalences than studies employing the Bergen Work Addiction Scale. The regression model explained 29% of the variance implying that a vast amount was still unexplained, and that future research would benefit from the inclusion of other moderators.

Incidence of effort-reward imbalance among nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…This heterogeneity could not be adequately adjusted through subgroup analysis, potentially due to the fact that the included studies were based on different continents, sampling methods, types of nurses, etc. This is consistent with the notion that it is difficult to avoid heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of epidemiologic surveys ( Long et al, 2014 ; Andersen et al, 2023 ). When heterogeneity is high, it exceeds random error, which may influence the reliability of the study results.…”

Incorporating gendered analysis and flexibility in heavy work investment studies: a systematic literature review

“…Nevertheless, women’s increasing economic independence and social participation do not alter existing gender roles but instead reinforce them, as they support the corporate-centered society through employment while shouldering the majority of domestic labor, perpetuating male dominance ( Ogiwara et al, 2008 ; Nakamura et al, 2022 ). These cultural, social and institutional singularities have also led to numerous studies aimed at validating measurement scales for antecedents, dimensions, and consequences of HWI in these countries, typically designed for Western nations, further increasing the visibility of research output in Asian countries ( Andersen et al, 2023 ).…”

“…This work considers gender only as a potential moderator of workaholism and work engagement relationship and concludes that gender did not significantly affect. Andersen et al (2023) present a first meta-analysis and systematic review of workaholism prevalence in 23 countries, including a discussion on the concept and its measurement, but without any reference to gender differences. Cheng and Gu (2022) explore the relationship between workaholism and work performance by meta-analysis and demonstrate that workaholism and its dimensions (working excessively and working compulsively) exert varying effects on distinct facets of work achievement.…”