Depression Rates Differ By Occupation, Industry

TOPLINE:

Employment in retail, food service, media, and healthcare support was associated with higher rates of depression and/or distress than employment in other industries and occupations, a new study showed. Depression rates were also higher among younger people and women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using telephone survey data of more than 536,000 actively employed civilian adults from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System collected between 2015 and 2019 and across 37 US states.
• Primary outcomes were self-reported lifetime diagnosed depression and number of mentally unhealthy days (MUDs).
• Secondary outcomes were frequent mental distress (FMD, 14 or more MUDs in the past 30 days) and extreme distress (30 MUDs in the past 30 days).

TAKEAWAY:

• The prevalence rates of lifetime diagnosed depression, FMD, and extreme distress in all workers combined were 14%, 10%, and 4%, respectively.
• Among industries, the highest prevalence of mental health issues was observed in workers in retail (adjusted prevalence ratio [APR] for lifetime diagnosed depression, 1.15; APR for FMD, 1.23) and in accommodation and food services (APR for lifetime diagnosed depression, 1.13; unadjusted extreme distress, 6.8%). Among occupations, the highest prevalence of FMD was observed in arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media (APR, 1.32), healthcare support (APR, 1.19), and food preparation and serving (APR, 1.20).
• The mean number of MUDs was higher among workers who were aged 18-34 years (11.3), single (11.0), or without healthcare coverage (11.9) than in the respective reference groups, irrespective of having lifetime diagnosed depression. Uninsured vs insured workers also reported higher prevalence of FMD (14% vs 9%) and extreme distress (7% vs 4%).
• Women had significantly higher prevalence of lifetime diagnosed depression (20% vs 10%), FMD (12% vs 8%), and extreme distress (5% vs 3%) than men.

IN PRACTICE:

“Workplaces can play a role in identifying and reducing psychosocial hazards and promoting workers’ mental health. More research is needed to evaluate work-related factors and workplace intervention effectiveness,” the investigators wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron L. Sussell, PhD, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Spokane, Washington. It was published online on June 6 in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on self-reported diagnoses and symptoms of mental health conditions, possibly introducing recall or reporting bias. Industry and occupation classifications were based on participants’ free-text responses, potentially leading to misclassification. The cross-sectional design also limited the ability to infer causality. Additionally, certain industry and occupation groups had small sample sizes, reducing the precision of some subgroup estimates. 

DISCLOSURES:

The investigators reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.