[Flanders versus The Netherlands: focus on differences between depressive symptoms in men and women measured on the basis of CES-D8]. / Vlaanderen versus Nederland: verschillen in depressieve klachten bij mannen en vrouwen gemeten met de CES-D8.

BACKGROUND: A consistent finding in international research is the higher prevalence of depression in women than in men, but it is not known to what extent this gender difference is robust in population research. AIM: In this study we focus on gender differences in depressive symptoms of the population of Flanders and the Netherlands. method We made use of the European Social Survey organised in 2006 and 2007 (n = 3014); depression being measured by means of an 8-item version of the Center of Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, CES-D. First we studied the psychometric properties of the depression inventory, looking closely at both the reliability and factional validity of the scale. Next we compared the gender and regional differences in the prevalence of depressive symptoms as measured by the CES-D8 scale. Finally, using regression analysis, we examined to what extent the gender differences between Flanders and the Netherlands were family-related and linked to socio-economic factors. RESULTS: Our study pointed to the reliability and factional validity of the CES-D8. Our results confirmed a higher prevalence of depressive symptoms among women than among men. On average, Flemish respondents reported fewer depressive symptoms than Dutch respondents, but their scores showed greater dispersion. CONCLUSIONS: These differences can be explained partly by different family and socioeconomic circumstances.

Differential exposure and differential vulnerability as counteracting forces linking the psychosocial work environment to socioeconomic health differences.

BACKGROUND: In this article, the link between (1) psychosocial working conditions (job demands, job autonomy, task variation, social support), (2) self-reported health (persistent fatigue, musculoskeletal complaints, emotional well-being) and (3) socioeconomic position (skill levels, occupational status) is explored. The two theoretical pathways linking the psychosocial work environment to socioeconomic differences in health are explored: differential exposure and differential vulnerability. Previously, the focus has often been on social inequalities in exposure to the stressors. The pathway of differential vulnerability in different socioeconomic positions is often neglected. METHODS: In a representative cross-sectional sample of 11,099 Flemish (Belgian) wage earners, 16-65 years of age (47.5% women), logit modelling is applied. RESULTS: Higher exposure to psychosocial occupational stressors is associated with a higher prevalence of adverse health outcomes. Lower skill levels and subordinate occupational positions show a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints, but not of persistent fatigue or emotional well-being. High demands, job strain and iso-strain are more common in higher-skilled, supervisory and managerial positions, but have the strongest health-damaging effects in lower socioeconomic positions. Low control is more prevalent in lower-skilled and subordinate positions, while having stronger adverse health effects in higher socioeconomic positions-the same holds for social support, although it has no clear socioeconomic distribution. CONCLUSION: Differential exposure and differential vulnerability constitute two counteracting forces in constituting the association between the psychosocial work environment and socioeconomic differences in self-reported health complaints among wage earners.