Discrepancy between objective and subjective measures of job stress and sickness absence
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the association of the discrepancy between externally and self-assessed measures of work environment with long- and short-term sickness absence. METHODS: The study population included 6997 middle-aged men and women from the Whitehall II cohort, whose work characteristics were examined at baseline (1985-1988) through both an external evaluation and self-report, with a follow-up of up to 13 years of sickness absence reporting from administrative records. The primary exposure of interest was the discrepancy between measures of work stress for fast job pace, conflicting demands, and decision latitude. RESULTS: In mutually adjusted models, external measures of job characteristics were more strongly associated with higher rates of sickness absence compared with self-assessed measures, for both lower frequency of fast work pace and lower conflicting demands (i.e., "passive" levels). Individuals who self-reported higher frequencies of fast work pace and conflicting demands than were reported through external assessment had higher rates of short-term sickness absence [incident rate ratios (IRR) of 1.13 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.11-1.15) and IRR 1.14 (95% CI 1.11-1.16), respectively]. There was no difference in rates of sickness absence found for decision latitude [IRR 1.02 (95% CI 1.00-1.04)]. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that the discrepancy between externally and self-assessed job demand measures have additional predictive power beyond each individual measure of job structure, which may be related to the extent of cognitive and emotional processing of assessment questions as compared to decision latitude measures.
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
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.
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?
It is unclear which measures of stress most accurately and consistently relate to health outcomes, and this often depends on the cohort sampled, which health outcomes are measured, and whether the outcomes are short or long term.
“Furthermore, it is unclear which of these measures most accurately and consistently relate to health outcomes, and this often depends on the cohort sampled, which health outcomes are measured, and whether the outcomes are short or long term (Cohen et al., 1997; Rehkopf et al., 2010).”
From More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for population science (2018) · cites this paper as Rehkopf et al., 2010
The Abstract says associations between work stress and health vary by measurement method. The Discussion reports different associations for short- and long-term sickness absence and suggests that contrasts with other studies may reflect different populations, outcomes, or stress measures. It does not establish that cohort and outcome differences often determine which measure relates most consistently to health. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 18
- Authors
- Rehkopf, D. H., Kuper, H., & Marmot, M. G.
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
- Venue
- Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health
- Published
- 2010-08-20
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 449-457
- ISSN
- 0355-3140 (ISSN-L)
- 1795-990X
- OpenAlex
- W1996496581
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (HS06516)
- National Institute for Health and Care Research
- British Heart Foundation (HS06516, RG/07/008/23674)
- Health and Safety Executive
- National Institutes of Health
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS06516)
- Medical Research Council (HS06516)
- National Institute on Aging (AG 13196, HS06516)
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL36310, R01HL036310)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
- Keywords
- occupational stress, sick leave, measurement discrepancy, job control, job characteristics, Whitehall II cohort, middle-aged workers
- MeSH terms
- Absenteeism, Adult, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Diseases, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Workplace, Sick Leave, Diagnostic Self Evaluation
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