本研究代表了关于工作狂患病率的第一个荟萃分析和系统评价。它还调查了样本量,代表性,和仪器缓和了患病率估计。该分析在PROSPERO(CRD42023395794)预注册。我们搜索了WebofScience,PubMed,CINAHL,Embase,PsychInfo.BASE,MedNar,NYAM,OpenGREY,OpenMD并将Google学者的前200次搜索作为灰色文献[搜索字符串:“(workaholi*或\“工作成瘾者*\”)和(患病率*或事件*或频率*或截止或epidem*)]。搜索产生了42项研究,除了使用其他方法确定的11项研究。两名独立的评估者进行了搜索,提取信息并评估偏差风险,协议评级为92.4%,84.9%,和87.0%,分别。纳入标准是报告以任何欧洲语言撰写的关于工作狂患病率的原始数据的研究。导致排除的标准是会议摘要,辅助数据的使用,工作狂的目的抽样,定性研究和基于分布的预定截止值。通过核对表评估纳入文章的偏倚风险。大多数纳入的研究有中等偏倚风险。在确认的663条记录中,共纳入53项研究,其中10项具有全国代表性,所有研究共有来自23个国家的71,625名参与者。合并的工作狂患病率为15.2%(95%CI=12.4-18.5),在对出版偏倚进行修剪和填充调整后,将其调整为14.1%(95%CI=11.2-17.6)。元回归显示,具有代表性样本的研究报告的患病率低于基于非代表性样本的研究,与采用卑尔根工作成瘾量表的研究相比,基于荷兰工作成瘾量表的研究产生了更高的患病率。回归模型解释了29%的方差,这意味着仍有大量无法解释,未来的研究将受益于其他主持人的加入。
The present study represents the first meta-analysis and systematic
review on the prevalence of workaholism. It also investigated if sample size, representativeness, and instrument moderated the prevalence estimates. The analysis was pre-registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023395794). We searched Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsychInfo. BASE, MedNar, NYAM, OPENGREY, OpenMD and included the first 200 searches on Google scholar as gray literature [search string: \"(workaholi* OR \"work addict*\") AND (prevalence* OR incident* OR frequen* OR cut-off OR epidem*)]. The search yielded 42 studies to be included, in addition to 11 studies identified using other methods. Two independent raters went through the searches, extracted information and evaluated risk of bias, resulting in agreement ratings of 92.4%, 84.9%, and 87.0%, respectively. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting original data on the prevalence of workaholism written in any European language. Criteria which led to exclusion were conference abstracts, usage of secondary data, purposive sampling of workaholics, qualitative research and pre-determined cut-off based on distribution. Risk of bias of the included articles was evaluated through a checklist. Most of the included studies had a moderate risk of bias. Of the 663 records identified, a total of 53 studies were included, 10 of these being nationally representative with all studies in total amounting to 71,625 participants from 23 countries. The pooled workaholism prevalence was 15.2% (95% CI = 12.4-18.5), which was adjusted to 14.1% (95% CI = 11.2-17.6) following a trim-and-fill adjustment for publication bias. The meta-regression revealed that studies with representative samples reported lower prevalences than those based on non-representative samples, and that studies based on the Dutch Work Addiction Scale yielded higher prevalences than studies employing the Bergen Work Addiction Scale. The regression model explained 29% of the variance implying that a vast amount was still unexplained, and that future research would benefit from the inclusion of other moderators.