Journal article
Work-related factors and the risk of common mental disorder 1 year later: A prospective cohort study among junior doctors
K Petrie, A Gayed, MJ Spittal, N Glozier, F Shand, SB Harvey
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry | SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD | Published : 2024
Abstract
Objective: This study investigated the relationship between work-related factors at baseline and the risk of common mental disorder at 12 month follow-up among a cohort of junior doctors. Method: The data comprised the junior doctor respondents from two annual waves of the ‘Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life’ (MABEL) survey, a national longitudinal cohort of Australian doctors. Individual and work-related risk factors were assessed at baseline and the mental health outcome of caseness of common mental disorder (CMD) was assessed using the 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale at 12-month follow-up. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions were conducted to estimat..
View full abstractRelated Projects (2)
Grants
Awarded by Utah Department of Health and Human Services
Funding Acknowledgements
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for the MABEL survey has been provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (2007 to 2016: 454799 and 1019605); the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2008); Health Workforce Australia (2013); The University of Melbourne, Medibank Better Health Foundation, the NSW Ministry of Health and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (2017); and the Australian Government Department of Health (2018). This work was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Programme Scholarship (KP), the NHMRC Centre of Research in Suicide Prevention (KP, CRESP; [GNT1152952]), 'Front of Mind' (AG), 'Thriving in Health' (AG) and a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (SBH, [1178666]). The funding groups played no role in the design, execution analyses, interpretation of the data, writing of the manuscript, or any other aspect of the study. The researchers were independent from the funding bodies.