Relationship among work–treatment balance, job stress, and work engagement in Japan: a cross-sectional study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.23.21265407: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Cell Line AuthenticationAuthentication: The UWES-3 has been validated in five countries, including Japan, and includes measures of vigor (one item), dedication (one item), and absorption (one item), with each item measured on a seven-point response scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always/every day).

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    We used Stata/SE Ver.15.1 (StataCorp LLC, Station College, TX, USA) for statistical analyses.
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study has some limitations. First, because this study was an Internet-based survey, generalizability may be insufficient. We attempted to reduce bias in recruiting participants. Second, this study is a cross-sectional study, and the causal relationship between work–treatment balance and job stress or work engagement is not clear. Third, the concrete disease diagnoses of the participating workers receiving the support of the work–treatment balance is unknown. In Japan, the proportion of workers with mental health disorders is higher than that of brain and heart diseases 3), and it cannot be denied that there was a bias in these results. Fourth, this study was conducted during a COVID-19 epidemic, and we cannot deny the possibility that this may have modified these results. Further research should be conducted at normal times.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.