Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of the multinomial logistic regression models: effects of prior downsizing on depression

From: Depressive symptoms as a cause and effect of job loss in men and women: evidence in the context of organisational downsizing from the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health

 

Depressive symptoms at follow-up (score 10–16)

Major depression at follow-up (score 17–24)

Both sexes (N = 3503)

No (Cases)

RRR (95 % CI)

p value

No (Cases)

RRR (95 % CI)

p value

Baseline depression scores 0–9 (no depression)

      

 Employees, no downsizing

1505 (115)

1 (ref.)

 

1505 (26)

1 (ref.)

 

 Downsizing survivors

1143 (114)

1.35 (1.08 to 1.69)

0.007

1143 (24)

1.36 (0.94 to 1.96)

0.105

 Downsizing, displaced workers

136 (21)

2.01 (1.16 to 3.50)

0.013

136 (5)

3.66 (1.65 to 8.08)

0.001

Baseline depression scores 10–16 (depression symptoms)

      

 Employees, no downsizing

268 (79)

5.57 (4.44 to 7.00)

<0.001

268 (25)

8.43 (5.72 to 12.42)

<0.001

 Downsizing survivors

250 (94)

7.54 (5.49 to 10.36)

<0.001

250 (27)

11.44 (6.71 to 19.51)

<0.001

 Downsizing, displaced workers

42 (10)

11.23 (6.16 to 20.47)

<0.001

42 (10)

30.82 (12.67 to 74.98)

<0.001

Baseline depression scores 17–24 (major depression)

      

 Employees, no downsizing

72 (22)

7.86 (5.21 to 11.85)

<0.001

72 (22)

36.03 (22.35 to 58.08)

<0.001

 Downsizing survivors

69 (20)

10.63 (6.66 to 16.97)

<0.001

69 (24)

48.91 (26.67 to 89.68)

<0.001

 Downsizing, displaced workers

18 (7)

15.83 (7.94 to 31.55)

<0.001

18 (6)

131.731 (51.45 to 337.28)

<0.001

Men (N= 1624)

      

Baseline depression scores 0–9 (no depression)

      

 Employees, no downsizing

649 (37)

1 (ref.)

 

649 (7)

1 (ref.)

 

 Downsizing survivors

616 (49)

1.42 (0.99 to 2.04)

0.058

616 (7)

1.05 (0.53 to 2.10)

0.890

 Downsizing, displaced workers

82 (10)

1.64 (0.66 to 4.12)

0.290

82 (2)

4.93 (1.23 to 19.69)

0.024

Baseline depression scores 10–16 (depression symptoms)

      

 Employees, no downsizing

91 (25)

7.16 (5.00 to 10.26)

<0.001

91 (6)

11.46 (5.76 to 22.82)

<0.001

 Downsizing survivors

115 (46)

10.17 (6.11 to 16.91)

<0.001

115 (8)

12.04 (4.62 to 31.39)

<0.001

 Downsizing, displaced workers

23 (5)

11.76 (4.37 to 31.63)

<0.001

23 (8)

56.46 (11.52 to 276.58)

<0.001

Baseline depression scores 17–24 (major depression)

      

 Employees, no downsizing

18 (2)

4.36 (1.95 to 9.76)

<0.001

18 (5)

40.33 (16.44 to 98.92)

<0.001

 Downsizing survivors

23 (4)

6.19 (2.56 to 14.95)

<0.001

23 (7)

42.35 (13.72 to 130.71)

<0.001

 Downsizing, displaced workers

7 (3)

7.16 (2.10 to 24.39)

0.002

7 (1)

198.65 (34.61 to 1140.11)

<0.001

Women (N= 1879)

      

Baseline depression scores 0–9 (no depression)

      

 Employees, no downsizing

856 (78)

1 (ref.)

 

856 (19)

1 (ref.)

 

 Downsizing survivors

527 (65)

1.32 (1.00 to 1.76)

0.052

527 (17)

1.59 (1.02 to 2.46)

0.039

 Downsizing, displaced workers

54 (11)

2.12 (1.03 to 4.34)

0.041

54 (3)

3.17 (1.16 to 8.70)

0.025

Baseline depression scores 10–16 (depression symptoms)

      

 Employees, no downsizing

177 (54)

4.69 (3.49 to 6.29)

<0.001

177 (19)

7.02 (4.38 to 11.27)

<0.001

 Downsizing survivors

135 (48)

6.20 (4.12 to 9.33)

<0.001

135 (19)

11.14 (5.82 to 21.30)

<0.001

 Downsizing, displaced workers

19 (5)

9.92 (4.56 to 21.60)

<0.001

19 (2)

22.28 (7.29 to 68.13)

<0.001

Baseline depression scores 17–24 (major depression)

      

 Employees, no downsizing

54 (20)

9.90 (5.98 to 16.37)

<0.001

54 (17)

39.04 (21.81 to 69.89)

<0.001

 Downsizing survivors

46 (16)

13.10 (7.33 to 23.40)

<0.001

46 (17)

61.91 (29.52 to 129.82)

<0.001

 Downsizing, displaced workers

11 (4)

20.96 (8.75 to 50.22)

<0.001

11 (5)

123.85 (38.46 to 398.78)

<0.001

  1. Note: Dependent variable: level of depression at follow-up. Reference outcome: no depression at follow-up (score 0–9). Analyses adjusted for: demographic (age, gender, education, marital status) and employment variables (permanence of employment as of 2008 and employment in 2010), exposure to past downsizing (2006–2008) and long term sickness. RRR by exposure status were computed as point estimates for linear combination of coefficients after multinomial logistic regression models
  2. RRR relative risk ratios, 95 % CI 95 % confidence interval, No number of persons, total; Cases: persons with the respective scores