The impact of work-related physical assaults on mental health among Japanese employees with different socioeconomic status: The Japan Work Stress and Health Cohort Study (JSTRESS)

Abstract

BackgroundWork-related physical assaults or violence has severely impacted on the safety of the work environment and employees’ mental health. The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of physical assaults, the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on it and depression associated with it in employees working at large companies.MethodsA total of 22,770 Japanese employees responded to a self-administered questionnaire including SES (educational status and occupational status), violence victimization, worksite social support and depression (response rate, 85%). The 12-month prevalence of physical assaults and depression was examined using a single question and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale, respectively.ResultsThe prevalence of physical assaults was 1.8% both in males and females. Although the risk of exposure to physical assaults was 2–3 times higher in the blue-collar group than in the manager group, the association of exposure to physical assaults with depression was stronger in the manager and white-collar worker group (Prevalence ratio [PR]=2.1 in males; 1.8 in females) than in the blue-collar worker group (PR=1.7 in males; 1.5 in females) after adjusting demographic and occupational covariates. A similar pattern was observed for education in males; the association was stronger than in the lower education group (PR=2.1 and 1.8).ConclusionsLow SES is a risk factor of exposure to physical assaults, however, the association of physical assaults with depression was significantly greater among company employees of higher SES than those of lower SES.

Occupational Risk for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Trauma-Related Depression: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

“…After exclusion of duplicates, we reviewed 12,321 and excluded 12,180 studies based on the title and abstract. After the full-text review, we excluded 110 more studies, yielding 31 included publications [ 1 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. Table S2 shows the studies excluded based on the full-text review.…”

“…The inclusion criteria were met by 31 studies with the following designs: 28 cross-sectional studies, 2 cohort studies [ 40 , 47 ], and 1 matched case-control study [ 53 ]. Twelve studies originated in Europe [ 27 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 49 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 ], nine studies were from North America [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 ], four studies were from Asia [ 33 , 34 , 51 , 55 ], two studies originated from South America [ 29 , 43 ], two studies were from Australia [ 36 , 44 ], one study was from Israel [ 57 ], and one study included data from around the world [ 30 ]. The studies are listed in Table S3 .…”

“…Ten studies were conducted on soldiers and/or veterans after wartime deployment [ 28 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 46 , 47 , 50 ]; seven studies were done on health care workers [ 36 , 39 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 55 , 57 ]; three studies included police officers or firefighters [ 27 , 32 , 52 ]; three studies investigated train drivers or subway train drivers [ 33 , 34 , 56 ]; and two studies were done on journalists or war journalists [ 29 , 30 ]. Thirteen studies investigated PTSD [ 28 , 31 , 32 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 54 ], 10 studies investigated depression [ 36 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 53 ], and another 10 investigated both outcomes [ 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 38 ...…”

“…In 17 studies, the exposure was defined as having had a trauma at the workplace [ 28 , 29 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 48 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 56 , 57 ]. Fourteen studies investigated an occupational group [ 27 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 41 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 54 , 55 ].…”

“…Five studies had a high risk of bias due to the recruitment procedure [ 27 , 39 , 44 , 45 , 49 ]. Two studies had a high risk of bias due to the exposure [ 27 , 28 ]; 1 study because of the outcome [ 46 ]; 11 studies due to confounders [ 28 , 29 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 51 , 54 , 55 ]; and 12 studies due to the analysis methods [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 39 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 54 , 56 , 57 ]. Results with regard to the minor domains are shown in Table 1 .…”