It has been suggested that certain types of work may increase the risk of common mental disorders, but the exact nature of the relationship has been contentious. The aim of this paper is to conduct the first comprehensive systematic meta-review of the evidence linking work to the development of common mental health problems, specifically depression, anxiety and/or work-related stress and to consider how the risk factors identified may relate to each other. MEDLINE, PsychInfo, Embase, the Cochrane Collaboration and grey literature databases were systematically searched for review articles that examined work-based risk factors for common mental health problems. All included reviews were subjected to a quality appraisal. 37 review studies were identified, of which 7 were at least moderate quality. 3 broad categories of work-related factors were identified to explain how work may contribute to the development of depression and/or anxiety: imbalanced job design, occupational uncertainty and lack of value and respect in the workplace. Within these broad categories, there was moderate level evidence from multiple prospective studies that high job demands, low job control, high effort-reward imbalance, low relational justice, low procedural justice, role stress, bullying and low social support in the workplace are associated with a greater risk of developing common mental health problems. While methodological limitations continue to preclude more definitive statements on causation between work and mental disorders, there is now a range of promising targets for individual and organisational-level interventions aimed at minimising mental health problems in the workplace.

No abstract

Depression and anxiety disorders are the leading cause of sickness absence and long-term work incapacity in most developed countries. The present study aimed to carry out a systematic meta-review examining the effectiveness of workplace mental health interventions, defined as any intervention that a workplace may either initiate or facilitate that aims to prevent, treat or rehabilitate a worker with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety or both. Relevant reviews were identified via a detailed systematic search of academic and grey literature databases. All articles were subjected to a rigorous quality appraisal using the AMSTAR assessment. Of the 5179 articles identified, 140 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 20 were deemed to be of moderate or high quality. Together, these reviews analysed 481 primary research studies. Moderate evidence was identified for two primary prevention interventions; enhancing employee control and promoting physical activity. Stronger evidence was found for CBT-based stress management although less evidence was found for other secondary prevention interventions, such as counselling. Strong evidence was also found against the routine use of debriefing following trauma. Tertiary interventions with a specific focus on work, such as exposure therapy and CBT-based and problem-focused return-to-work programmes, had a strong evidence base for improving symptomology and a moderate evidence base for improving occupational outcomes. Overall, these findings demonstrate there are empirically supported interventions that workplaces can utilize to aid in the prevention of common mental illness as well as facilitating the recovery of employees diagnosed with depression and/or anxiety.

Individual placement and support is an effective intervention across a variety of settings and economic conditions and is more than twice as likely to lead to competitive employment when compared with traditional vocational rehabilitation.

The potential positive effects of good work and the role work can play in facilitating recovery from an illness and enhancing mental well-being need to be highlighted and promoted more widely. Future research should aim to further investigate what constitutes a 'good' workplace or a 'good' job in terms of mental health outcomes.