The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impact of psychiatric disorders on work loss days
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine relationships between recent DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders and work impairment in major occupational groups in the US labour force. METHOD: Data are from the US National Comorbidity Survey (NCS), a survey of respondents ages 15-54 in the US. Employed people are the focus of the report. RESULTS: There is substantial variation across occupations in the 30-day prevalences of NCS/ DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders, with an average prevalence of 18.2% (range: 11.0-29.6%) for any disorder. The average prevalences of psychiatric work loss days (6 days per month per 100 workers) and work cutback days (31 days per month per 100 workers), in comparison, do not differ significantly across occupations. Work impairment is more strongly concentrated among the 3.7% of the workforce with co-morbid psychiatric disorders (49 work loss days and 346 work cutback days per month per 100 workers) than the 14.5% with pure disorders (11 work loss days and 66 work cutback days per month per 100 workers) or the 81.8% with no disorder (2 work loss days and 11 work cutback days per month per 100 workers). The effects of psychiatric disorders on work loss are similar across all occupations, while effects on work cutback are greater among professional workers than those in other occupations. CONCLUSION: The results reported here suggest that work impairment is one of the adverse consequences of psychiatric disorders. The current policy debate concerning insurance coverage for mental disorders needs to take these consequences into consideration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kessler, R. C. (1994) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950010008002 · Cited by 12,370
Self-citationService utilization and social morbidity associated with depressive symptoms in the community
Johnson, J. (1992) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480110054033 · Cited by 726
Advances in strategies for minimizing and adjusting for survey nonresponse
Kessler, R. C., Little, R. J. A., & Groves, R. M. (1995) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036176 · Cited by 341 · cited 1×
“Comparisons between the Part II NCS sample and the NHIS results show that the survey data are representative of the population on a wide range of social and demographic variables (Kessler et al. 1995).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Cited by
KESSLER, R. C., ANDREWS, G., COLPE, L. J., HIRIPI, E., MROCZEK, D. K., NORMAND, S.-L. T., WALTERS, E. E., & ZASLAVSKY, A. M. (2002) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291702006074 · Cited by 10,327
Self-citationThe size and burden of mental disorders and other disorders of the brain in Europe 2010
Wittchen, H. U., Jacobi, F., Rehm, J., Gustavsson, A., Svensson, M., Jönsson, B., Olesen, J., Allgulander, C., Alonso, J., Faravelli, C., et al. (2011) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2011.07.018 · Cited by 3,754
Beyond money: toward an economy of well-being
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x · Cited by 2,555
Size and burden of mental disorders in Europe—a critical review and appraisal of 27 studies
Wittchen, H.-U., & Jacobi, F. (2005) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2005.04.012 · Cited by 1,503
“Consistent with numerous earlier studies for specific diagnoses (Bijl and Ravelli, 2000a; Jacobi et al., 2004b; Greenberg et al., 1996, 1999; Kessler and Frank, 1997; Rice and Miller, 1998; Spijker et al., 2004; Wittchen, 2002) and expert-based WHO projections (i.e. Murray and Lopez, 1996; Olesen…”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- KESSLER, R. C., & FRANK, R. G.
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1997-07
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 861-873
- ISSN
- 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8978
- OpenAlex
- W2090653135
- Cited by
- 716
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 32.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
