Industry differences in psychological distress and distress‐related productivity loss: A cross‐sectional study of Australian workers

OBJECTIVE: This research uses Australian survey data to identify industries with high rates of psychological distress, and to estimate productivity impacts in the form of work loss and cutback days. METHODS: Analyzing cross‐sectional data from the 2017/2018 National Health Survey, industry prevalence of psychological distress (Kessler Screening Scale) was compared using ordered logistic regression. Productivity outcomes were distress‐related work loss days and work cutback days in the previous 4 weeks. Losses were analyzed using zero‐inflated negative binomial regression. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 9073 employed workers [4497 males (49.6%), 4576 females (50.4%)]. Compared to the reference industry, Health, the odds of very high distress for males were highest in Information media and telecommunications (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2–4.6) and Administrative and support services (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.2–5.0), while for females the odds were highest in Accommodation and food services (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.5–2.8) followed by Retail (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2–2.0). Very high distress was associated excess productivity losses. Industry of occupation did not impact on productivity loss over and above distress. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial psychological distress was reported which impacted on productivity. High‐risk industries included Information media and telecommunications, Accommodation and food services, and Retail.