Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effort-reward imbalance and common mental disorders among public sector employees of Iran: a cross-sectional analysis

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 1447 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model is a widely used theoretical model to measure stress in the workplace. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between ERI and three common mental disorders: major depressive disorder (MDD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

Methods

In this cross-sectional analysis, the study sample consisted of 4453 baseline participants of the Employees’ Health Cohort Study of Iran (EHCSIR). Trained psychologists utilized the Persian version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-2.1) during the baseline assessment to identify common mental disorders. Additionally, the validated Persian version of the 23-item ERI questionnaire was employed to assess effort, reward, overcommitment, and effort-reward ratio. To examine the association of ERI components with three common mental disorders (MDD, GAD, and OCD) over the past twelve months, multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted.

Results

The prevalence of effort-reward imbalance in the study sample was 47.1%. Higher ERI score was significantly associated with MDD (OR: 3.43, 95% CI: 2.30–5.13), GAD (OR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.27–4.63), and OCD (OR: 2.23, 95% CI:1.19–4.19). The study participants who reported higher scores on work overcommitment had a higher likelihood of having MDD (OR: 1.16, 95% CI:1.10–1.23), GAD (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01–1.14), and OCD (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.09–1.29).

Conclusions

According to the study’s findings, work-related stress, as determined by the ERI model, is a significant factor in the development of common mental disorders among employees in the public sector.

Peer Review reports

Background

The global prevalence, of major depressive disorder (MDD) and anxiety disorders stands at 4.7% and 8.3% respectively over 12 months. However, in Iran, the prevalence of these disorders is higher with MDD affecting, around 12.7% of the population and anxiety disorder impacting 15.6% [1, 2]. Mental disorders are progressively emerging as the predominant factor necessitating sick leave and prolonged work disability [3]. Mental well-being is linked to heightened productivity, creativity, enhanced social interactions, and elevated socioeconomic standing [3].

Stressful socio-environmental conditions are a pivotal factor influencing the development of mental disorders in workplace settings [4]. The Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model, developed by Siegrist, stands as a widely accepted theoretical framework for assessing workplace stress [5, 6]. This model centers on the notion of an imbalance between the efforts exerted at work and the rewards garnered in return. Furthermore, the ERI model encompasses an overcommitment element, a personality trait that amplifies work-related stress and heightens susceptibility to this imbalance [4, 7]. A systematic review of 18 studies found that the range of effort-reward imbalance was between 4 and 81% [8]. Moreover, a cross-sectional study conducted in five educational medical centers in Iran reported that the prevalence of ERI was 55% among nurses [9]. Health workers who work under intensive workloads are at risk of experiencing ERI [8, 10].

The epidemiological evidence regarding the association between workplace stress and mental health is predominantly derived from high-income countries, specifically limited to the investigation of depression [11,12,13,14]. Based on the findings of two meta-analysis studies, it has been determined that exposure to ERI is a significant risk factor for the development of stress-related disorders and mental illnesses [15, 16]. Similarly, a cross-sectional study among Chinese public health workers revealed that effort and overcommitment were positively associated with depression and anxiety, while the reward was negatively associated with these disorders [17]. However, another similar study did not confirm the relationship between ERI factors with MDD and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) [18]. Some studies have shown that the effect size of the effort-reward ratio is greater than the effect size of individual effort or reward factors [19]. To date, there has been no research conducted on the impact of the ERI model on obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, it is recognized that stress in the work environment can contribute to the development of this disorder [20].

The possible association between the ERI model and mental disorders may be ascribed to physiological, biological, and lifestyle risk factors [21, 22]. This imbalance can result in the experience of negative emotions and sustained autonomic activation, which in turn can have detrimental long-term effects on mental health [7].

The ERI model can be utilized as a valuable instrument for recognizing work-related stress and directing workplace health promotion initiatives. Such programs hold significant importance in low-income nations, particularly during swift and stressful transformations in the labor market.

The present study is a cross-sectional analysis of the association between the ERI model (effort, reward, overcommitment, and effort-reward imbalance) and twelve-month MDD, GAD, and OCD, using the baseline data from the Employees’ Health Cohort Study of Iran (EHCSIR). We hypothesized that (1) effort, overcommitment, and ERI scores would act as risk factors, (2) reward would serve as a protective factor, and (3) the effect size of the ERI score would be stronger than the effect sizes related to the individual model components of effort or reward.

Methods

Study design

This is a cross-sectional study that utilizes baseline data from the Employees’ Health Cohort Study of Iran (EHCSIR). EHCSIR is a prospective cohort study that aims to investigate the various occupational and non-occupational determinants contributing to non-communicable diseases among Iranian public sector employees. The reference population for the EHCSIR comprised over 15,000 employees working across 43 distinct units within Tehran province, predominantly in schools, hospitals, health centers affiliated with the Iran University of Medical Sciences, and the headquarters staff of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. All active non-temporary staff were eligible to participate in the cohort study. Initially, the study aimed to recruit 10,000 employees; however, due to COVID-19 social distancing restrictions, recruitment was halted in March 2020. From July 2017 to March 2020, a total of 4,886 employees were successfully recruited [23].

Baseline assessments

All of the 4,886 participants underwent a comprehensive baseline assessment lasting approximately 7 h at a single center. This assessment encompassed several face-to-face interviews (covering medical, psychological, nutritional, and sociodemographic items), clinical examinations (including blood pressure, electrocardiogram, pulmonary function tests, and auditory and visual assessments), anthropometric measurements, and the collection of biospecimens (blood and urine) for laboratory tests. Additionally, participants completed a tablet-based self-administered questionnaire [23].

Measurements

Effort-reward imbalance (ERI)

To assess the effort-reward imbalance, a trained psychologist utilized the 23-item Persian version of the ERI Questionnaire [24], in a personal interview during the baseline assessment. The Persian version of the ERI Questionnaire demonstrated satisfactory validity and reliability among employees of Iran [24]. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the constructs of effort, reward, and overcommitment were determined to be 0.61, 0.85, and 0.67, respectively. Furthermore, the item-total correlations for all constructs exceeded the threshold of 0.23, and the item-scale correlations were found to be higher than 0.4 [24]. Each item had a four-item Likert scale response including “completely agree = 1”, “agree = 2”, “disagree = 3”, and “completely disagree = 4”. The “effort”, “reward”, and “overcommitment” scores were calculated based on the average scores of the relevant 5, 11, and 6 items, respectively. The “ERI” score was calculated by dividing the effort score by to reward score.

Diagnosis of common mental disorders

To evaluate various psychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder, dysthymia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder, the Lifetime Version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI, version 2.1) was utilized. The CIDI is a fully structured psychiatric diagnostic interview developed by the World Health Organization which assesses psychiatric disorders based on DSM and ICD criteria. Trained interviewers who can be individuals without clinical experience manage to accurately utilize this diagnostic tool [2, 25]. Extensive testing across various languages and settings has revealed its strong reliability and validity in the majority of its diagnostic categories [2, 26, 27]. The Persian version of CIDI 2.1 has been found to have acceptable validity and reliability [28, 29]. Moreover, the inter-rater reliability of the CIDI 2.1 was evaluated within a general population sample, yielding kappa coefficients of 0.5 or higher for various psychiatric disorders [29]. It is capable of categorizing depressive disorders based on type (single or recurrent) and severity (mild, moderate, and severe) [30].

During the baseline assessments of the EHCSIR study, trained psychologists conducted interviews and assessed common mental disorders using the Persian lifetime version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-2.1) [29], based on DSM-IV criteria. The assessment included Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), which encompassed all mild, moderate, and severe cases of both single and recurrent episode major depressive disorders. The most recent episode among subjects who had ever met the full criteria for the disorder in their lifetime was used to recognize the twelve-month disorder.

Covariate factors

The EHCSIR baseline dataset was used to extract socio-demographic factors, which included gender, age, marital status, education, wealth index, job, and workplace. Furthermore, Job strain, defined as high levels of psychological demand with low control, was measured using the Persian version of the Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) [31]. The JCQ, developed by Karasek’s demand-control model, aimed at evaluating the psychosocial aspects of the work environment [32]. This questionnaire plays a crucial role in predicting risks associated with stress [32]. To evaluate the job strain, a trained psychologist employed the Persian version of the JCQ in a structured interview during the baseline assessment. The Persian version of the JCQ has exhibited strong validity and reliability in assessing workplace stress levels among healthcare professionals in Iran [31]. Notably, the internal consistency coefficient, as measured by Cronbach’s α, surpassed 0.75 for the majority of the questionnaire’s subscales [31].

Ethical statement

The research ethics committee of the Iran University of Medical Science approved the study, with ethical code #IR.IUMS.REC.1402.593. All participants provided written informed consent before joining the study. Moreover, the participants’ data were kept confidential and only accessible to the main study investigators. Anonymized data was used for statistical analyses. The study was conducted by the Declaration of Helsinki [33], national guidelines, and regulations.

Approach to missing data

The total number of EHCSIR participants was 4886 public sector employees. Among these participants, 217 did not complete the CIDI interview or did not respond to the ERI questionnaire. Specifically, 146 did not respond to the CIDI interview, 145 did not respond to the ERI, and 74 did not respond to both. Additionally, for 216 participants, some of the covariate data were missing.

Considering that non-response in most cases was due to the long time spent conducting the basic evaluations and not participating in the psychological interviews station, these cases were considered as missing completely at random (MCAR). Therefore, a complete data analysis approach was applied.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) for continuous variables and as numbers (percentage) for categorical variables. We utilized principal component analysis (PCA) to estimate wealth levels based on asset indices. Job strain was considered binary as job strain (high demands and low control) versus no strain (all other categories combined).

Logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the association between each of the ERI model components (effort, reward, overcommitment, and ERI) and each of the common mental disorders (MDD, GAD, and OCD). We calculated the odds ratio (OR) of outcomes per 1 standard deviation increase in each component of the ERI model. Three models were used in each logistic regression analysis: no adjustment, minimal adjustment (adjusted for gender, age, marital status, education, and wealth index), and full adjustment (adjusted for gender, age, marital status, education, wealth index, job, workplace, and Job strain model). Adjusted odds ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were presented. STATA version 14 was used for all analyses, and the significance level was set at 0.05.

Results

In the current study, out of the total 4886 participants enrolled in the EHCSIR, 4453 individuals had complete data and were included for analyses. 47.1% (n = 2097) of respondents had effort-reward imbalance. This proportion was 50.1% (821 out of 1640) among men, and 45.3% (1274 out of 2813) among women. The study population characteristics are presented in Table 1. The average age of the participants was 42.9 years (SD = 8.1), and the majority of them were women (63.2%). Additionally, 80.8% of the subjects were married.

Mean and standard deviation for each factor of the ERI model are given in Table 2. Men showed higher levels of effort (< 0.01), and job promotion (< 0.05), than women. However, women rated their job security much higher than men (< 0.001). Moreover, the mean effort-reward ratio was 1.02 (SD = 0.26), and didn’t show a statistically significant gender difference.

Tables 3 and 4, and 5 present the associations between scores of ERI model factors and twelve-month MDD, GAD, and OCD. We found that effort did not significantly influence these mental disorders in any of the three models. Moreover, it was observed that an increase of one standard deviation in work reward had a small but significant effect on reducing the likelihood of having mental illnesses.

In Table 3, fully adjusted Model 3 indicates that a one standard deviation increase in the overcommitment score revealed a weak yet statistically significant association with MDD, yielding an OR of 1.16 (95% CI: 1.10–1.23). Additionally, a higher ERI score by one standard deviation demonstrated a strong positive correlation with MDD, as reflected by an odds ratio of 3.43 (95% CI: 2.30–5.13). Similarly, Table 4 shows that a one standard deviation increase in the overcommitment score displayed a weak OR for GAD, measuring at 1.07 (95% CI: 1.01–1.14). Moreover, the odds of GAD were found to be 2.42 times higher for each standard deviation increase in the ERI score (95% CI: 1.27–4.63). As demonstrated in Table 5, the overcommitment score was associated with OCD (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.09–1.29). Furthermore, the likelihood of OCD increased by an OR of 2.23 for every standard deviation rise in the ERI score (95% CI: 1.19–4.19).

The odds ratios associated with each mental disorder in relation to the ERI score exhibited greater effect sizes compared to the ORs linked to the separate components of effort or reward within each model.

Based on our findings, none of the proposed hypotheses was rejected. However, the hypothesis suggesting that effort is a contributing risk factor for mental disorders did not receive support.

Table 1 Characteristics of study subjects according to twelve-month MDD, GAD, and OCD in EHCSIR
Full size table
Table 2 Means and SDs for ERI questionnaire scales by gender
Full size table
Table 3 Logistic regression analysis of factors in the ERI model on twelve-month MDD
Full size table
Table 4 Logistic regression analysis of factors in the ERI model on twelve-month GAD
Full size table
Table 5 Logistic regression analysis of factors in the ERI model on twelve-month OCD
Full size table

Discussion

The current study investigated the prevalence of ERI among the study population, which was found to be 47.1%. The study found that all factors of the ERI model, except effort, had a significant relationship with twelve-month MDD, GAD, and OCD in the EHCSIR. High reward was identified as a protective factor, while high overcommitment and ERI-score were identified as risk factors for each of these mental disorders. Furthermore, the study revealed that an increase in score had a significantly greater impact on MDD, GAD, and OCD compared to the individual components of high effort or low reward.

A systematic review of 18 studies on the ERI model among health workers found that the range of ERI varied from 4 to 81%. Moreover, at least 20% of the health workers faced an ERI in half of the studies. This proportion has been reported in Greece, Vietnam, Switzerland, and France as 81%, 32%, 18%, and 10%, respectively [8]. In our study, similar to lower-middle-income countries, we found a high prevalence of it. This can be attributed to several factors, such as heavy workload, especially at higher levels of health care services [34], and getting less reward for their workload [35].

The cross-sectional study we conducted offers additional evidence that the ERI model in the workplace is linked to a higher risk of mental disorders. This finding is in line with previously reported research results. According to a meta-analysis of eight cohort studies involving 84,963 employees, there is a positive association between the ERI experienced at work and an elevated risk of depressive disorders, with a pooled random-effects estimate of 1.49 (95% CI: 1.23–1.80). However, the authors acknowledge that the results of the meta-analysis may not be highly dependable due to the limited number of studies that were incorporated [12]. Similarly, in a study from the ELSA-Brazil project, which included 10,034 public sector employees, an increase in the prevalence ratio (PR) of depressive episodes was reported based on ERI factors. They reported relationships between effort (PR = 1.85), overcommitment (PR = 3.62), reward (PR = 3.44), and the effort-reward imbalance (PR = 2.47) with depressive episodes [11]. In addition, a large cohort study in Belgium found that cumulative experience and recent onset of ERI (OR for men = 2.8, OR for women = 4.6) and overcommitment (OR for men = 2.4) are associated with an elevated risk of depression [19]. Likewise, this cohort study reported associations between anxiety with ERI (OR for men = 2.3, OR for women = 4.5) and overcommitment (OR for men = 2.5) [19]. Besides, the results of a cross-sectional study in China showed relationships between effort (OR = 1.33), overcommitment (OR = 1.19), and reward (OR = 0.91) with GAD [17].

However, a cross-sectional study in the UK did not confirm the relationship between ERI factors and depression or anxiety symptoms, possibly due to the small sample size [18].

The connection between the constituents of the model and mental illnesses can be clarified by psychological mechanisms such as humiliation, helplessness, and diminished self-esteem [12], as well as physiological alterations such as the dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and immune system [21]. Stress can trigger the dysregulation of neurotransmitter and hormone release, which can result in a range of symptoms associated with biological, affective, cognitive, and behavioral functions [4]. Likewise, people who overcommit, exert effort beyond normal levels, or often find themselves exposed to high demands at work may experience reduced potential to recover from job demands and increased sensitivity to disappointment when expected rewards are not met. These factors may ultimately lead to poor mental health [36].

The current investigation provides evidence in favor of the notion that the composite evaluation of effort and reward has a more potent impact on mental illnesses than individual evaluations of effort or reward. This finding is in line with the previous research [37]. It could be attributed to a combination of factors, including a synergistic effect, psychological mechanisms, and measurement validity [38]. Although, a different study that tested the same hypothesis discovered that the stressful effects of reward were more pronounced than the stressful effects of the ERI [11].

This study has several strengths. First, the study employed a valid diagnostic tool to measure MDD, GAD, and OCD, which is a notable strength [12]. This is in contrast to many previous studies that relied on hospital records, self-reporting, or symptom scales, which are more prone to reporting and recall biases. Second, this study assesses multiple mental outcomes, unlike other similar studies that have limited their analysis scope to one dimension of mental health. Previous studies on the relationship between the ERI model and mental disorders have primarily focused on depressive disorders, and data collection relied on self-reporting [12, 39]. In addition to depression, the present study has addressed GAD and OCD, which are relatively common mental disorders with a high disease burden. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between the ERI model and OCD. Third, in contrast to the majority of prior investigations, we controlled for the job strain model (Demand-Control) while analyzing the correlation between the ERI model and each of the psychological disorders being studied. This was done because a systematic review has indicated a robust link between the high job strain model and common mental disorders [16]. Fourth, the study’s participants come from a variety of age groups, genders, and educational backgrounds, indicating a diverse sample. This diversity in the sample is likely to increase the generalizability of the study’s findings to the broader population. Fifth, the relationship between the ERI model and mental health is predominantly studied in high-income countries [11], while workers in low-income countries are more susceptible to experiencing adverse effects on their mental health. This is a matter of concern as approximately 75% of the global labor force is located in low-income countries [12].

The study has some limitations. Firstly, the utilization of a cross-sectional study design may diminish the robustness of conclusions regarding the association between variables. However, meta-analysis and review studies that are based on similar prospective studies can offer conclusions regarding predictive power, but not causation [40]. Furthermore, a study that employed Swedish national panel survey data discovered no indication of reverse causation from depression to psychosocial work stress [41]. Secondly, the generalizability of the study’s findings to the entire working population of Iran is limited since the sample only consists of individuals employed in the public sector.

Conclusions

According to the results of our research, stressful work, as measured by the ERI model, is significantly associated with the psychological outcomes examined in the relatively homogeneous population of the EHCSIR project. The ERI demonstrated a stronger association with these outcomes compared to other factors in the model. These findings have important implications for promoting mental health in workplaces, particularly in low-income countries that are undergoing rapid and stressful changes in the labor market. To reduce the ERI and work stress, several solutions can be implemented in the workplace: independence and greater decision-making by employees on their work, reducing workload through hiring additional employees, telecommuting or flexible working hours, and providing educational opportunities. However, further research is necessary to investigate the underlying mechanisms that contribute to this association and to identify effective interventions that can help alleviate the negative effects of the ERI model on mental health.

Data availability

The datasets produced and analyzed during the current study are available upon request sent to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

ERI:

Effort-Reward Imbalance

MDD:

Major Depressive Disorder

GAD:

Generalized Anxiety Disorder

OCD:

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

EHCSIR:

Employees’ Health Cohort Study of Iran

CIDI:

Composite International Diagnostic Interview

IranMHS:

Iran Mental Health Survey

JCQ:

Job Content Questionnaire

MCAR:

Missing Completely at Random

SD:

standard deviation

PCA:

Principal Component Analysis

OR:

Odds Ratio

CI:

Confidence Interval

PR:

prevalence ratio

References

  1. Kohn R. Epidemiology of common mental disorders. The Exercise Effect on Mental Health. New York: CRC; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sharifi V, Amin-Esmaeili M, Hajebi A, Motevalian A, Radgoodarzi R, Hefazi M, Rahimi-Movaghar A. Twelve-month prevalence and correlates of psychiatric disorders in Iran: the Iranian mental health survey. Arch Iran Med. 2015;18(2):76–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Harvey SB, Modini M, Joyce S, Milligan-Saville JS, Tan L, Mykletun A, Bryant RA, Christensen H, Mitchell PB. Can work make you mentally ill? A systematic meta-review of work-related risk factors for common mental health problems. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74(4):301–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Siegrist J, Wege N. Adverse psychosocial work environments and Depression-A narrative review of selected theoretical models. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang J, Patten SB, Currie S, Sareen J, Schmitz N. A population-based longitudinal study on work environmental factors and the risk of major depressive disorder. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(1):52–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kunz C. The influence of working conditions on health satisfaction, physical and mental health: testing the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model and its moderation with over-commitment using a representative sample of German employees (GSOEP). BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Feldt T, Hyvönen K, Mäkikangas A, Rantanen J, Huhtala M, Kinnunen U. Overcommitment as a predictor of effort-reward imbalance: evidence from an 8-year follow-up study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2016;42(4):309–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nguyen Van H, Dinh Le M, Nguyen Van T, Nguyen Ngoc D, Tran Thi Ngoc A. Nguyen the P. A systematic review of effort-reward imbalance among health workers. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2018.

  9. Roshanger F, Davoudi B, Hasankhani H, Babapour J. The Relationship between the effort-reward imbalance and Psychosocial Health in nurses. J Res Med Dent Sci. 2018;6(2):67–73.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ge J, He J, Liu Y, Zhang J, Pan J, Zhang X, Liu D. Effects of effort-reward imbalance, job satisfaction, and work engagement on self-rated health among healthcare workers. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):195.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. de Araújo TM, Siegrist J, Moreno AB, de Fonseca J, Barreto M, Chor SM, Griep D. RH. Effort-Reward Imbalance, Over-Commitment and Depressive Episodes at Work: Evidence from the ELSA-Brasil Cohort Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(17):3025.

  12. Rugulies R, Aust B, Madsen IE. Effort-reward imbalance at work and risk of depressive disorders. A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(4):294–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rugulies R, Aust B, Madsen IE, Burr H, Siegrist J, Bültmann U. Adverse psychosocial working conditions and risk of severe depressive symptoms. Do effects differ by occupational grade? Eur J Public Health. 2013;23(3):415–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Siegrist J, Lunau T, Wahrendorf M, Dragano N. Depressive symptoms and psychosocial stress at work among older employees in three continents. Global Health. 2012;8:27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Nieuwenhuijsen K, Bruinvels D, Frings-Dresen M. Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occup Med (Lond). 2010;60(4):277–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stansfeld S, Candy B. Psychosocial work environment and mental health–a meta-analytic review. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2006;32(6):443–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang J, Wang Y, Xu J, You H, Li Y, Liang Y, Li S, Ma L, Lau JT, Hao Y, Chen S, Zeng J, Li J, Gu J. Prevalence of mental health problems and associated factors among front-line public health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in China: an effort-reward imbalance model-informed study. BMC Psychol. 2021;9(1):55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Griffin JM, Greiner BA, Stansfeld SA, Marmot M. The effect of self-reported and observed job conditions on depression and anxiety symptoms: a comparison of theoretical models. J Occup Health Psychol. 2007;12(4):334–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Godin I, Kittel F, Coppieters Y, Siegrist J. A prospective study of cumulative job stress concerning mental health. BMC Public Health. 2005;5:67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Adams TG, Kelmendi B, Brake CA, Gruner P, Badour CL, Pittenger C. The role of stress in the pathogenesis and maintenance of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Chronic Stress (Thousand Oaks). 2018;2:2470547018758043.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Siegrist J, Li J, Work Stress, Biomarkers A. A synthesis of findings based on the effort-reward imbalance model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(11):1373.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kouvonen A, Kivimäki M, Virtanen M, Heponiemi T, Elovainio M, Pentti J, Linna A, Vahtera J. Effort-reward imbalance at work and the co-occurrence of lifestyle risk factors: cross-sectional survey in a sample of 36,127 public sector employees. BMC Public Health. 2006;6:24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Rajabzadeh R, Janani L, Motevalian SA. Effects of different invitation strategies on participation in a cohort study of Iranian public sector employees: a cluster randomized trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21:1–0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yadegarfar G, Alinia T, Hosseini R, Hassannejad R, Fayaz M, Sanati J, Sanati K, Harandi J, Hajnoorozali V, Baghi MR, Mirzavand E, Majeed A. Psychometric properties of the Farsi version of effort-reward imbalance questionnaire: a longitudinal study in employees of a synthetic fibre factory in Iran. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2013;86(2):147–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kessler RC, Ustün TB. The World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative Version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic interview (CIDI). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2004;13(2):93–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wittchen HU, Robins LN, Cottler LB, Sartorius N, Burke JD, Regier D. Cross-cultural feasibility, reliability and sources of variance of the Composite International Diagnostic interview (CIDI). The Multicentre WHO/ADAMHA field trials. Br J Psychiatry. 1991;159:645 – 53, 658.

  27. Wittchen HU. Reliability and validity studies of the WHO–Composite International Diagnostic interview (CIDI): a critical review. J Psychiatr Res. 1994;28(1):57–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Alaghband Rad J, feasibility of Farsi translation of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC). Study of the reliability, validity, and. In: Ahmadi Abhari SA, Malakooti K, Nasr Esfahani M, Razzaghi EM, Sadeghi M, Yasamy MT, editors. Mental health effects of Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in a war – torn population of Iran: an epidemiological and financial study of the consequences of the Kuwaiti oil well fire disaster in the aftermath of Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991, Monitoring and Assessment Project. Tehran - Iran: Islamic Republic of Iran Ministry of Health, Committee for assessment and follow up for damages resulting from the Iraq–Kuwait War; 2003.

  29. Rahimi-Movaghar A, Amin-Esmaeili M, Sharifi V, Hajebi A, Radgoodarzi R, Hefazi M, Motevalian A. Iranian mental health survey: design and field procedures. Iran J Psychiatry. 2014;9(2):96–109.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Biesheuvel-Leliefeld KE, Kok GD, Bockting CL, de Graaf R, Ten Have M, van der Horst HE, van Schaik A, van Marwijk HW, Smit F. Non-fatal disease burden for subtypes of depressive disorder: population-based epidemiological study. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16:139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Jabali ST, Ghaffari M, Pournik O, Ghalichi L, Yazdi AT, Motevalian SA. Reliability and validity of Persian version of job content questionnaire in health care workers in Iran. Int J Occup Environ Med (the IJOEM). 2013;4(2 April):144–96.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Karasek RA Jr. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Administrative Sci Q 1979 Jun 1:285–308.

  33. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wright T, Mughal F, Babatunde OO, Dikomitis L, Mallen CD, Helliwell T. Burnout among primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2022;100(6):385–A401.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Willis-Shattuck M, Bidwell P, Thomas S, Wyness L, Blaauw D, Ditlopo P. Motivation and retention of health workers in developing countries: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:247.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Preckel D, von Känel R, Kudielka BM, Fischer JE. Overcommitment to work is associated with vital exhaustion. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2005;78(2):117–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Siegrist J, Wahrendorf M. Work stress and health in a globalized economy. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2016.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  38. Tanimoto AS, Richter A, Lindfors P. How do effort, reward, and their combined effects Predict Burnout, Self-rated Health, and work-family conflict among Permanent and fixed-term Faculty? Ann Work Expo Health. 2023;67(4):462–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang J, Smailes E, Sareen J, Schmitz N, Fick G, Patten S. Three job-related stress models and depression: a population-based study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2012;47(2):185–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Theorell T. On effort-reward imbalance and depression. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2017;43(4):291–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Åhlin JK, LaMontagne AD, Magnusson Hanson LL. Are there bidirectional relationships between psychosocial work characteristics and depressive symptoms? A fixed effects analysis of Swedish national panel survey data. Occup Environ Med. 2019;76(7):455–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The initiation of the Employees’ Health Cohort Study of Iran (EHCSIR) was financially supported by the Ministry of Health and Medical Education through contract number 105-3855 of Iran University of Medical Sciences. The continuation of EHCSIR was supported by the Iran University of Medical Sciences through contract number 105-4638. We would like to thank the EHCSIR staff, who carried out the baseline assessments and follow-up interviews. We also appreciate all those who participated in the cohort study.

Funding

The project was funded by the Student Research Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences. It should be noted that the funder did not exert any influence on the design or interpretation of the study results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Nastaran Nasirpour, Ebtesam Savari & Abbas Motevalian

  2. Mental Health Research Center, Psychosocial Health Research Institute (PHRI), Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammadreza Shalbafan & Ahmad Pirani

  3. Endocrine Research Center, Endocrinology & Metabolism Research Institute, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Hamid Reza Baradaran

  4. Research Center for Addiction and Risky Behaviors (ReCARB), Psychosocial Health Research Institute (PHRI), Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Abbas Motevalian

Authors
  1. Nastaran Nasirpour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammadreza Shalbafan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ebtesam Savari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmad Pirani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hamid Reza Baradaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abbas Motevalian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NN and AM both conceptualized and designed the study, with AM serving as the principal investigator responsible for all aspects of the work. NN carried out the initial statistical analysis, while AM supervised staff training and data collection procedures, led data curation and statistical analysis, and revised the manuscript. ES and AP performed data extraction and contributed to data curation and statistical analysis. MSH and HRB contributed to interpreting the data, and revising the manuscript. All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abbas Motevalian.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethics approval was granted by the Student Research Committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences (Ethical code: #IR.IUMS.REC.1402.593).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nasirpour, N., Shalbafan, M., Savari, E. et al. Effort-reward imbalance and common mental disorders among public sector employees of Iran: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Public Health 24, 1447 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18871-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18871-6

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us