See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Satu Viertiö
National Institute for Health and Welfare
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8894-2056
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Psychological distress refers to non-specific symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression, and it is more common in women. Our aim was to investigate factors contributing to psychological distress in the working population, with a special reference to gender differences.
Methods
We used questionnaire data from the nationally representative Finnish Regional Health and Well-being Study (ATH) collected in the years 2012–2016 (target population participants aged 20 +, n=96 668, response rate 53%), restricting the current analysis to those persons who were working full-time and under 65 of age (n=34 468). Psychological distress was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) (cut-off value <=52). We studied the following factors potentially associated with psychological distress: sociodemographic factors, living alone, having children under18 years of age, lifestyle-related factors, social support, helping others outside of the home and work-related factors. We used logistic regression analysis to examine association between having work-family conflict with the likelihood for psychological distress. We first performed the models separately for men and women. Then interaction by gender was tested in the combined data for those independent variables where gender differences appeared probable in the analyses conducted separately for men and women.
Results
Women reported more psychological distress than men (11.0% vs. 8.8%, respectively, p<0.0001). Loneliness, job dissatisfaction and family-work conflict were associated with the largest risk of psychological distress. Having children, active participation, being able to successfully combine work and family roles, and social support were found to be protective factors. A significant interaction with gender was found in only two variables: ignoring family due to being absorbed in one’s work was associated with distress in women (OR 1.30 (95% CI 1.00–1.70), and mental strain of work in men (OR 2.71 (95% CI 1.66–4.41).
Conclusions
Satisfying work, family life and being able to successfully combine the two are important sources of psychological well-being for both genders in the working population.
Keywords
Psychological distress, work-family conflict, gender, nationally representative study
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Version 3
Posted 04 Nov, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 24 Dec, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 23 Dec, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 21 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 08 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 08 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 08 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 08 Dec, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 29 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 29 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 17 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 03 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 03 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 13 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 12 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 12 Sep, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 28 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 24 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 20 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 01 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 01 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 16 Jul, 2020
First submitted
On 14 Jul, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Satu Viertiö
National Institute for Health and Welfare
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8894-2056
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Version 3
Posted 04 Nov, 2020
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 24 Dec, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 23 Dec, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 21 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 08 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 08 Dec, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 08 Dec, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 08 Dec, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 29 Nov, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Nov, 2020
Editor assigned
On 29 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 17 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 03 Oct, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 03 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 15 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 15 Sep, 2020
Editor assigned
On 13 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 13 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 12 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 12 Sep, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 28 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 24 Aug, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 20 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 01 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 01 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 16 Jul, 2020
First submitted
On 14 Jul, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Background
Psychological distress refers to non-specific symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression, and it is more common in women. Our aim was to investigate factors contributing to psychological distress in the working population, with a special reference to gender differences.
Methods
We used questionnaire data from the nationally representative Finnish Regional Health and Well-being Study (ATH) collected in the years 2012–2016 (target population participants aged 20 +, n=96 668, response rate 53%), restricting the current analysis to those persons who were working full-time and under 65 of age (n=34 468). Psychological distress was assessed using the Mental Health Inventory-5 (MHI-5) (cut-off value <=52). We studied the following factors potentially associated with psychological distress: sociodemographic factors, living alone, having children under18 years of age, lifestyle-related factors, social support, helping others outside of the home and work-related factors. We used logistic regression analysis to examine association between having work-family conflict with the likelihood for psychological distress. We first performed the models separately for men and women. Then interaction by gender was tested in the combined data for those independent variables where gender differences appeared probable in the analyses conducted separately for men and women.
Results
Women reported more psychological distress than men (11.0% vs. 8.8%, respectively, p<0.0001). Loneliness, job dissatisfaction and family-work conflict were associated with the largest risk of psychological distress. Having children, active participation, being able to successfully combine work and family roles, and social support were found to be protective factors. A significant interaction with gender was found in only two variables: ignoring family due to being absorbed in one’s work was associated with distress in women (OR 1.30 (95% CI 1.00–1.70), and mental strain of work in men (OR 2.71 (95% CI 1.66–4.41).
Conclusions
Satisfying work, family life and being able to successfully combine the two are important sources of psychological well-being for both genders in the working population.
Figure 1
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...