Why the study?
Does Type D personality increase the risk of adverse work-related health outcomes in a community sample?
Does Type D personality increase the risk of adverse work-related health outcomes in a community sample?
Type D personality is associated with increased burnout, sick leave, and disability pension in the working population, partially mediated by depression.
Supports assessing Type D personality in occupational health; leaves open causality and intervention effects.
AIMS: Personality may play a decisive role in perceiving work-related characteristics as stressful, leading to adverse health outcomes. Persons with a Distressed personality (Type D) experience increased negative emotions while inhibiting these emotions in social situations. We investigated the role of Type D personality on adverse health outcomes, sick leave, burnout and disability pension. The mediating role of depressive symptoms on this relation was assessed because Type D represents a vulnerability factor for depression. METHODS: In a cross-sectional community sample of the Dutch population (n = 1,172) Type D personality was related to sick-leave (five categories of days per year), burnout, and disability pension, controlling for confounders. RESULTS: Individuals with Type D personality reported more burnout (27% vs 8%), disability pension (32% vs 11%), and had an increased incidence of short-term sick leave (χ(2 )= 13.1, p = 0.011) as compared to non-Type D's. Type D was significantly related to burnout (odds ratio (OR) = 4.16) and disability pension (OR = 2.62) independent of confounders. The Sobel test indicated significant mediation of depression on the relation between Type D personality and the work-related health outcomes. After mediation Type D personality remained significantly related to burnout, indicating a unique unshared effect. CONCLUSIONS: Type D personality is related to adverse health outcomes in the working population, mediated by depression, which warrants further research for this personality type.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mommersteeg et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: