294 Does depression severity predict differences between individual and work-unit averaged measures of the psychosocial work environment?
研究探讨抑郁症严重程度是否影响个体对工作心理社会环境的报告，发现严重程度越高，报告与单位平均值的偏差越大，但结果未达统计显著。
<h3>Objectives</h3> It is debated if results from epidemiological studies on psychosocial factors at work and risk of depression are affected by the common rater problem, thus inflating associations by introducing reporting bias. Because depression is associated with cognitive distortions it is expected that severity of depression affects the level of reported exposures. The present study aims to investigate the possible dose-effect relationship between diagnosed severity of depression and differences between individual and work-unit averaged measures of the psychosocial work environment in a large epidemiological study. <h3>Methods</h3> In 2007 4291 Danish public employees within 378 different work units were enrolled in the study. Mean levels of psychological demands were computed for each work unit. Screening for depressive symptoms (SCL-DEP6) 329 persons scoring above cut-off were invited to a diagnostic interview (SCAN), resulting in 40 cases with mild, 43 with moderate, and 17 with severe depression, and 229 cases with no diagnosis of depression. Differences were analysed with ANOVA statistics. <h3>Results</h3> For quantitative demands the mean score difference was 0.08 points for participants with mild depression compared to their work-unit average, 0.28 points for participants with moderate depression and 0.36 points for participants with severe depression (p = 0.40). <h3>Conclusions</h3> The data indicate a dose-effect pattern between severity of depression and divergence from work-unit averages. However, the results are not statistically significant and our initial hypothesis is not supported. Future perspectives involve including two follow-up waves to gather more cases and provide additional statistical power, and also allow adjustment for relevant confounders and changes in reporting over time. These results have implications regarding the need for exposure measures that are independent of reports from participants diagnosed with depression, but may also be explored as indicators of social marginalisation as a mechanism relevant to the development or maintenance of depression.