4.3 Article

Effort-reward imbalance and depression among private practice physicians

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-011-0656-1

Keywords

Depression; EVort-reward imbalance; Job insecurity; Physician

Funding

  1. Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [H17-Rodo-Ippan-001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Current private practice physicians provide medical services in a harsh economic situation. The effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model puts its emphasis on an imbalance between high efforts spent and low rewards received in occupational life. ERI model includes three different reward factors from task to organizational levels. We examined whether ERI in terms of low organizational reward (poor prospective and job insecurity) could be the most relevant and strongly associated with depression among private practice physicians. This is a cross-sectional questionnaire study of 1,103 private practice physicians who were currently working in clinical settings and completed the data of exposure and outcome. The study questionnaire was mailed to all the physicians listed as members of a local branch of the Japan Medical Association (n = 3,441) between November and December 2008. Outcomes were prevalence of depression as measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale and adjusted odds ratios (OR) of depression with respect to ERI. Fifty-seven percent of physicians were exposed to ERI, and 18% of the physicians were depressed. Logistic regression analyses revealed that ERI was significantly associated with depression (OR and 95% confidence interval = 3.57; 2.43-5.26). ERI with regard to organizational reward was most prevalent (60%) and had the strongest association with depression (5.14; 3.36-7.92). Predominant prevalence of ERI in terms of organizational level low reward and strong associations between the ERI component and depression suggests that countermeasures from social perspective are crucial.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available