Dataset Information

Are reports of psychological stress higher in occupational studies? A systematic review across occupational and population based studies.

ABSTRACT: The general health questionnaire (GHQ) is commonly used to assess symptoms of common mental disorder (CMD). Prevalence estimates for CMD caseness from UK population studies are thought to be in the range of 14-17%, and the UK occupational studies of which we are aware indicate a higher prevalence. This review will synthesise the existing research using the GHQ from both population and occupational studies and will compare the weighted prevalence estimates between them.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence of CMD, as assessed by the GHQ, in all UK occupational and population studies conducted from 1990 onwards.The search revealed 65 occupational papers which met the search criteria and 15 relevant papers for UK population studies. The weighted prevalence estimate for CMD across all occupational studies which used the same version and cut-off for the GHQ was 29.6% (95% confidence intervals (CIs) 27.3-31.9%) and for comparable population studies was significantly lower at 19.1% (95% CIs 17.3-20.8%). This difference was reduced after restricting the studies by response rate and sampling method (23.9% (95% CIs 20.5%-27.4%) vs. 19.2% (95 CIs 17.1%-21.3%)).Counter intuitively, the prevalence of CMD is higher in occupational studies, compared to population studies (which include individuals not in employment), although this difference narrowed after accounting for measures of study quality, including response rate and sampling method. This finding is inconsistent with the healthy worker effect, which would presume lower levels of psychological symptoms in individuals in employment. One explanation is that the GHQ is sensitive to contextual factors, and it seems possible that symptoms of CMD are over reported when participants know that they have been recruited to a study on the basis that they belong to a specific occupational group, as in nearly all "stress" surveys.

SUBMITTER: Goodwin L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3817075 | biostudies-other | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAutomated language analysis of radiology reports using natural language processing (NLP) can provide valuable information on patients' health and disease. With its rapid development, NLP studies should have transparent methodology to allow comparison of approaches and reproducibility. This systematic review aims to summarise the characteristics and reporting quality of studies applying NLP to radiology reports.MethodsWe searched Google Scholar for studies published in English that applied NLP to radiology reports of any imaging modality between January 2015 and October 2019. At least two reviewers independently performed screening and completed data extraction. We specified 15 criteria relating to data source, datasets, ground truth, outcomes, and reproducibility for quality assessment. The primary NLP performance measures were precision, recall and F1 score.ResultsOf the 4,836 records retrieved, we included 164 studies that used NLP on radiology reports. The commonest clinical applications of NLP were disease information or classification (28%) and diagnostic surveillance (27.4%). Most studies used English radiology reports (86%). Reports from mixed imaging modalities were used in 28% of the studies. Oncology (24%) was the most frequent disease area. Most studies had dataset size > 200 (85.4%) but the proportion of studies that described their annotated, training, validation, and test set were 67.1%, 63.4%, 45.7%, and 67.7% respectively. About half of the studies reported precision (48.8%) and recall (53.7%). Few studies reported external validation performed (10.8%), data availability (8.5%) and code availability (9.1%). There was no pattern of performance associated with the overall reporting quality.ConclusionsThere is a range of potential clinical applications for NLP of radiology reports in health services and research. However, we found suboptimal reporting quality that precludes comparison, reproducibility, and replication. Our results support the need for development of reporting standards specific to clinical NLP studies.

Dataset Information

Are reports of psychological stress higher in occupational studies? A systematic review across occupational and population based studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets