CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 453Employment and Welfare StudiesWorkplace Health and Well-beingEducation and Work Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The mental health benefits of employment: Results of a systematic meta-review

Open access
Modini, Matthew, Joyce, Sadhbh, Mykletun, Arnstein, Christensen, Helen, Bryant, Richard A, Mitchell, Philip B, Harvey, Samuel B·2016·Australasian Psychiatry
DOI 10.1177/1039856215618523
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: The literature on mental health in the workplace largely focuses on the negative impacts of work and how work may contribute to the development of mental disorders. The potential mental health benefits of employment have received less attention. Method: A systematic search of reviews or meta-analyses that consider the benefits of work in regards to mental health was undertaken using academic databases. All relevant reviews were subjected to a quality appraisal. Results: Eleven reviews were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria, with four deemed to be of at least moderate quality. The available evidence supports the proposition that work can be beneficial for an employee’s well-being, particularly if good-quality supervision is present and there are favourable workplace conditions. The benefits of work are most apparent when compared with the well-documented detrimental mental health effects of unemployment. Conclusions: 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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1039856215618523

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Waddell G, 2006, London, UK: The Stationery Office
  2. 10.1177/000841741007700501 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–452 of 452

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Modini, M., Joyce, S., Mykletun, A., Christensen, H., Bryant, R. A., Mitchell, P. B., & Harvey, S. B.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Harvey, Samuel B
ORCID
Venue
Australasian Psychiatry
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2016-07-10
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
331-336
ISSN
  • 1039-8562 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1665
DOI
10.1177/1039856215618523
OpenAlex
W2346365317
Cited by
453
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 4
FWCI
35.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Australasian Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Beyond Blue
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Employment and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Education and Work Dynamics
Keywords
employee well-being, good work, supervision, working conditions, unemployment, mental illness, recovery from illness, good jobs
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Employment, Humans, Mental Health, Organizational Innovation, Organizational Culture

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