Contagion and Psychiatric Disorders: The Social Epidemiology of Risk (Comment on “The Epidemic of Mental Disorders in Business”)

IF 8.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
K. Keyes, Jeffrey Shaman
{"title":"Contagion and Psychiatric Disorders: The Social Epidemiology of Risk (Comment on “The Epidemic of Mental Disorders in Business”)","authors":"K. Keyes, Jeffrey Shaman","doi":"10.1177/00018392211067693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In their 2022 paper, Kensbock, Alkærsig, and Lomberg provide compelling evidence of an increased risk in treated depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders within workplaces, associated with the introduction of new hires who either have treated disorders themselves or are hired from workplaces with an increased prevalence of treated disorders. The authors interpret these findings as evidence of a “contagion” effect for psychiatric disorders, illustrative of workplace spread of disorder that may affect the mental health of employees. In this commentary, we contextualize these findings through psychiatric epidemiology. The evidence provided by Kensbock and colleagues is consistent with a long history of evidence in psychiatric and social epidemiology illustrating that many health outcomes are affected by those in our social networks and that psychiatric disorders, in particular, evidence spatial and temporal autocorrelation as well as social network spread that can be best conceptualized through well-known infectious disease principles. Thus, there is a large empirical literature that supports the findings of Kensbock, Alkærsig, and Lomberg. That said, the findings should not be overinterpreted; they fit some patterns of previous literature and known facts about psychiatric disorders, but not all. They also must be appropriately situated within the literature on workplace determinants of mental well-being more generally and, in particular, the global movements to situate the rights of workers with mental illness for employment protections and safe working conditions.","PeriodicalId":7203,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Science Quarterly","volume":"67 1","pages":"49 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392211067693","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In their 2022 paper, Kensbock, Alkærsig, and Lomberg provide compelling evidence of an increased risk in treated depressive, anxiety, and stress-related disorders within workplaces, associated with the introduction of new hires who either have treated disorders themselves or are hired from workplaces with an increased prevalence of treated disorders. The authors interpret these findings as evidence of a “contagion” effect for psychiatric disorders, illustrative of workplace spread of disorder that may affect the mental health of employees. In this commentary, we contextualize these findings through psychiatric epidemiology. The evidence provided by Kensbock and colleagues is consistent with a long history of evidence in psychiatric and social epidemiology illustrating that many health outcomes are affected by those in our social networks and that psychiatric disorders, in particular, evidence spatial and temporal autocorrelation as well as social network spread that can be best conceptualized through well-known infectious disease principles. Thus, there is a large empirical literature that supports the findings of Kensbock, Alkærsig, and Lomberg. That said, the findings should not be overinterpreted; they fit some patterns of previous literature and known facts about psychiatric disorders, but not all. They also must be appropriately situated within the literature on workplace determinants of mental well-being more generally and, in particular, the global movements to situate the rights of workers with mental illness for employment protections and safe working conditions.
传染病与精神疾病:风险的社会流行病学(评《商业精神疾病的流行》)
在他们2022年的论文中,肯斯伯克、阿尔克ærsig和隆伯格提供了令人信服的证据,证明工作场所中接受治疗的抑郁、焦虑和压力相关疾病的风险增加,这与新员工的引入有关,这些新员工要么自己治疗过疾病,要么从治疗过疾病的工作场所招聘。作者将这些发现解释为精神疾病“传染”效应的证据,说明工作场所的疾病传播可能影响员工的心理健康。在这篇评论中,我们通过精神流行病学将这些发现置于背景中。肯斯伯克及其同事提供的证据与精神病学和社会流行病学的长期证据历史是一致的,这些证据表明,许多健康结果受到我们社会网络中的影响,特别是精神疾病,证据空间和时间自相关以及社会网络传播可以通过众所周知的传染病原理最好地概念化。因此,有大量的实证文献支持Kensbock、al ærsig和Lomberg的发现。也就是说,研究结果不应被过度解读;它们符合先前文献中的一些模式和已知的关于精神疾病的事实,但不是全部。它们还必须被适当地置于更广泛地关于精神健康的工作场所决定因素的文献中,特别是置于使患有精神疾病的工人获得就业保护和安全工作条件的权利的全球运动中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Administrative Science Quarterly, under the ownership and management of the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, has consistently been a pioneer in organizational studies since the inception of the field. As a premier journal, it consistently features the finest theoretical and empirical papers derived from dissertations, along with the latest contributions from well-established scholars. Additionally, the journal showcases interdisciplinary work in organizational theory and offers insightful book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信