Publication:
An overview of work-related stress assessment

Placeholder

Departments

Organizational Unit

School / College / Institute

Organizational Unit
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Upper Org Unit

Program

KU-Authors

KU Authors

Co-Authors

Lavreysen,Olivia
Bakusic,Jelena
Abatzi,Thalia Anthi
Geerts,Annelien
Mateusen,Mies
Bashkin,Osnat
Bjelajac,Adrijana Koscec
Dopelt,Keren
du Prel,Jean-Baptist
Franic,Zrinka

Publication Date

Language

Type

Embargo Status

No

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Alternative Title

Abstract

Objective: Work-related stress (WRS) is associated with the development of various health issues and long-term absence from the workplace. Adequate measurement of WRS is essential to assess its prevalence, risks, and effectiveness of preventive interventions. The aim of this review was to provide an overview of different categories of WRS assessment: 1) self-assessment, 2) external assessment, and 3) biomarkers. Methods: The databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science have been searched until July 2024 for studies comprising self-assessment or external assessment of WRS, and WRS biomarkers. The selfassessment studies were further evaluated following the COSMIN guidelines. Results: In this review, a total of 15,749 articles were screened. The final analysis included 53 studies on selfassessment of WRS, 33 articles on external assessment of WRS and 167 articles on stress biomarkers. Within self-assessment studies, four instruments were included in the analysis: Job Content Questionnaire, Effort Reward Imbalance Questionnaire, Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire II and the Demand-Control-Support Questionnaire. The studies applying external assessment used job-exposure matrices, work register data, ethnography, digital tools, and external observation. The identified WRS biomarkers were associated with the sympathetic adrenal medullary axis, the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis, immune response and inflammation, and haemostatic, metabolic and (epi)genetic biomarkers. Conclusion: The available evidence does not support the claim that there is a singular golden standard for assessing WRS. Inclusion of objective parameters and the interaction with subjective parameters and biological markers has to be studied to receive a broader view of WRS.

Source

Publisher

Subject

Clinical neurology, Psychiatry

Citation

Has Part

Source

Journal of Affective Disorders

Book Series Title

Edition

DOI

10.1016/j.jad.2025.04.076

item.page.datauri

Link

Rights

Copyrights Note

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By

0

Views

0

Downloads

View PlumX Details