【作者】 任南；

【导师】 刘宝英；

【作者基本信息】 福建医科大学 ， 劳动卫生与环境卫生学， 2012， 硕士

【摘要】 [目的]1.采用职业紧张量表（OSI-R）量表，对火车司机的职业紧张状况进行调查，描述分析职业紧张的分布特征、主要职业紧张源及职业紧张反应类型，及影响火车司机职业紧张的主要因素；针对性提出减少火车司机职业紧张的综合预防措施。2.采用抑郁自评量表（SDS）评价火车司机抑郁症状的程度，分析影响火车司机抑郁症状发生的主要因素，描述火车司机主要职业紧张源、职业紧张反应与抑郁症状关系的假设模型并采用结构方程模型分析方法对该假设模型进行验证，探讨火车司机职业紧张源、职业紧张反应及抑郁症状之间的关系。研究为今后采取有效的干预措施，降低职业紧张反应程度，提高火车司机的心理健康水平提供依据。[方法]于2010年10月～2011年4月间对在南昌铁路局福州机务段工作一年以上，无精神疾患的1217名火车司机进行自填式的问卷普查，完成有效问卷的火车司机有1067人，问卷有效回收率88%。整群抽取与火车司机工作环境相近、年龄构成相近的重庆、成都组男性列车乘务员201人作为第一组对比观察人群；同样是机务段工作人员，但工作环境属于地面作业的机务段男性地面工作人员95人做为第二组对比观察人群。以OSI-R量表、SDS量表、A型行为量表为测量工具，描述职业紧张和抑郁症状的程度，同时对三个职业人群的人口学特征、职业特征和个性特征进行测定，分析以上因素对火车司机职业紧张、抑郁症状的影响。采用Amos16.0统计软件，构建职业紧张源、职业紧张反应及抑郁症状关系的路径图，分析变量间的直接作用或间接作用。[结果]一．火车司机职业紧张源、职业紧张反应及影响因素研究1．OSI-R量表、A型行为量表的信度及效度评价OSI-R总量表、职业紧张源与职业紧张反应分量表的Cronbachα系数分别为0.919，0.867和0.827；分半信度分别为0.852，0.904和0.896，符合心理测量学对量表的同质性要求。结构效度分析结果显示，OSI-R量表中各条目在相应项目中的载荷均具有统计学意义，且取值均大于0.30；职业紧张源与职业紧张反应分量表的主成分分析显示，各自提取主成分后累积贡献率分别为53.225%和54.426%，均高于结构效度检验的最低标准40%[40]。2．火车司机职业紧张评分分析控制和考虑了混杂因素的影响后协方差分析显示火车司机职业紧张总分252.20±37.93，低于乘务员262.62±38.03（P﹤0.01），高于地面人员244.51±33.01；而火车司机职业紧张源评分（161.52±20.05）接近乘务员的职业紧张源评分（162.15±20.82），高于地面工作人员职业紧张源评分（158.13±17.97），三职业人群间评分差异无统计学意义；火车司机职业紧张反应评分90.68±20.69，显著低于乘务员职业紧张反应评分100.47±20.44（P﹤0.01），高于地面工作人员86.55±18.47。3．火车司机职业紧张源、职业紧张反应特征的分析3．1火车司机职业紧张源因素的分析控制和考虑了混杂因素的影响后，火车司机职业紧张源分量表的子项“任务不适”评分27.58±4.55，低于乘务员30.01±4.97，差异有统计学意义；任务不适子项中条目“我的工作适合我的技能和兴趣”、“我感到对工作有很大的责任”、“我的才能在工作中得到发挥”、“在工作中能学到新技术、新方法”火车司机的评分分别高于地面工作人员和列车乘务员，差异具有统计学意义。火车司机“工作环境”评分37.14±6.63，高于乘务员评分34.11±6.38，差异有统计学意义；工作环境子项中条目“我的工作有危险性”、“我的工作时间变化大”、“工作过程中需要注意力高度集中”以及“我独立工作”火车司机的评分都显著高于地面工作人员和列车乘务员，差异具有统计学意义。3．2火车司机职业紧张反应因素的分析控制和考虑了混杂因素的影响后，三个职业人群职业紧张反应及其四个子项“业务紧张反应”、“心理紧张反应”、“人际关系紧张反应”、“躯体紧张反应”均呈现出火车司机评分低于乘务员，但高于地面工作人员的现象，差异具有统计学意义。其中火车司机“业务紧张反应”评分20.53±5.82显著低于乘务员24.41±5.48（P﹤0.01）；对该子项条目分析可见条目“我的工作质量是最好的”、“我感到工作很有意义和令人振奋”、“我能专心工作”火车司机的评分明显高于乘务员和地面工作人员，差异有统计学意义。火车司机“心理紧张反应”评分为24.37±7.19，显著低于乘务员评分28.53±6.83（P﹤0.01）。火车司机“人际关系紧张反应”子项评分21.63±4.76低于乘务员评分23.19±5.33（P﹤0.01），对该子项条目分析可见表示消极人际关系处理的选项评分低；同处列车工作环境的火车司机和乘务员，他们的“躯体紧张反应”评分比地面工作人员高，而火车司机的“躯体紧张反应”评分23.80±6.65又低于乘务员26.23±6.79（P﹤0.01）。3．3职业紧张源对职业紧张反应的影响进一步分析火车司机职业紧张源对紧张反应产生的影响，逐步回归分析结果显示火车司机职业紧张源中六个子项对紧张反应均产生影响，其中责任感、工作环境、任务模糊是影响火车司机职业紧张反应的重要职业紧张源，调整R2值分别达到0.567、0.551和0.534。列车乘务员有五个子项对紧张反应产生影响，调整R2值小于火车司机；地面工作人员只有三个，且调整R2值最小。4．火车司机职业紧张的影响因素分析日常没有体力运动火车司机的职业紧张评分262.24±36.31明显高于日常有进行体力运动司机的职业紧张评分250.12±37.32（P﹤0.01）；自觉生活无趣，在婚姻生活中经常吵闹者；难以适应环境，遇到困难避开自责，朋友之间从不关心的火车司机职业紧张评分最高（P﹤0.01）；普通列车司机职业紧张评分253.86±37.71，明显高于动车司机234.56±37.31（P﹤0.01）。此外，结果还显示具有A型行为倾向和抑郁症状火车司机的职业紧张评分显著高于无此行为特征的司机（P﹤0.01）；未婚组火车司机的职业紧张评分高于已婚组（P﹤0.05）；大专文化以上的火车司机职业紧张评分高于高中文化组（P﹤0.05）。多因素逐步回归分析显示对职业紧张有显著影响的因素分别为:抑郁症状评分、遇到困难处理方式、自觉生活状况、工龄和环境适应能力（P﹤0.01）。5．结论5.1南昌铁路局福州机务段火车司机中存在职业紧张源暴露，其中任务过重、注意力高度集中、承担危险责任、工作环境是火车司机主要职业紧张源因素；火车司机“任务不适”评分在三个职业人群中最低，提示火车司机工作中受到的训练及拥有的技能和经验基本能满足其工作需求。5.2职业紧张源是火车司机产生职业紧张反应的重要因素之一。5.3火车司机通过自身心理调节以及相应干预措施（如强制休息制度），降低了职业紧张反应。5.4个体应变能力、自觉生活状况、工龄和抑郁症状的存在是影响火车司机职业紧张的主要因素。二．火车司机抑郁症状与职业紧张关系研究及抑郁症状的流行病学作用过程1．抑郁自评量表的信度、效度评价抑郁自评量表的Cronbachα系数为0.813；分半信度为0.771；符合心理测量学对量表的同质性要求。结构效度分析结果显示量表各条目在相应项目中的载荷均大于0.30,具有统计学意义；提取公因子的累积贡献率为42.523%，高于结构效度检验的最低标准40%[40]。2．火车司机抑郁症状总体情况火车司机抑郁症状评分为50.38±10.20，低于乘务员抑郁症状评分52.99±11.43和地面工作人员抑郁症状评分52.27±9.48（P﹤0.01）；三个职业人群抑郁症状评分均高于国内常模41.88±10.51[55]，火车司机抑郁症状阳性率在三个职业人群中最低，为49.80%。3．火车司机职业紧张对抑郁症状的影响3．1火车司机职业紧张总分、职业紧张源、紧张反应对抑郁症状的影响结果显示，无论是火车司机或乘务人员，随着职业紧张总分、职业紧张源和职业紧张反应评分的上升，抑郁症状评分和抑郁症状阳性率也随之增长或增高，趋势卡方分析，差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）；火车司机高职业紧张总分组、高职业紧张源组和高职业紧张反应组的抑郁症状阳性率明显增加；高职业紧张总分组、高职业紧张源组、高职业紧张反应组火车司机抑郁症状发生的危险比（ROR）值分别为3.312、2.675和2.865；且危险性大于乘务员（ROR值分别为2.080、1.510、2.080）。对火车司机职业紧张评分与抑郁症状评分进行偏相关分析，结果显示职业紧张总分、职业紧张源、紧张反应评分均与抑郁症状评分相关（P﹤0.01），且相关系数均大于列车乘务员。多因素分析也显示在考虑和控制其它混杂因素之后，除了工龄、个体应变能力中的与朋友相处情况外，职业紧张、职业紧张反应仍是影响火车司机抑郁症状发生的主要危险因素（OR=4.104,5.052）。3．2火车司机职业紧张因素对抑郁症状的影响随着火车司机职业紧张源分量表6个子项即任务过重、任务不适、任务模糊、任务冲突、责任感、工作环境评分以及职业紧张反应分量表4个子项即业务紧张反应、心理紧张反应、人际关系紧张反应、躯体紧张反应评分的上升，火车司机抑郁症状评分上升（P<0.05）；以上各子项不同程度组抑郁症状阳性率趋势卡方分析，差异有显著性（P<0.01）；火车司机高任务过重组、高任务不适组、高任务模糊组、高任务界限组ROR值分别为1.619，2.522，2.551，2.347；危险性大于乘务员（ROR值分别为1.251，1.079，1.434，1.855）；火车司机高工作环境评分组ROR值为1.181小于乘务员的ROR值1.619。火车司机高业务紧张反应组、高心理紧张反应组、高人际关系紧张反应组、高躯体紧张反应评分组的ROR值分别为2.298,3.284，2.143,2.516；危险性也大于乘务员的ROR值，分别为1.841,2.286，1.542,2.359。多因素分析显示在考虑和控制其它混杂因素之后，除了工龄、个体应变能力中的与朋友相处情况外，任务不适、任务模糊仍是影响火车司机抑郁症状发生的主要职业紧张源（OR=1.989,4.423）；而影响火车司机抑郁症状发生的主要职业紧张反应是心理紧张反应、人际关系反应和躯体紧张反应（OR=2.559,2.091,2.344）。4．影响火车司机抑郁症状的因素分析分析职业紧张调节因素对抑郁症状的影响，结果显示，生活满意度中自觉生活无趣、难以适应环境，遇到困难避开自责，朋友之间从不关心与火车司机抑郁症状发生有关联，ROR分别为1.782、1.370、1.593和1.967。多因素分析也显示个体应变能力中的与朋友相处情况（OR=5.315）是影响火车司机抑郁症状发生的重要因素。通过对火车司机工作状况的分析显示动车组抑郁评分、抑郁症状阳性率显著低于非动车组；非动车组火车司机有抑郁症状的患病危险比是动车组司机的1.733倍；高工龄组、高年龄组火车司机的ROR值（1.421、1.476）都较低工龄、低年龄组上升。5．构建的火车司机职业紧张源、职业紧张反应对抑郁症状流行病学作用路径提示任务过重、任务界限、任务不适、任务模糊可通过紧张反应对火车司机抑郁症状产生影响；其中任务不适、任务模糊可以直接影响产生抑郁症状。自觉生活满意度、个体应变能力可以通过紧张反应对抑郁症状的发生产生影响；个体应变能力可以对抑郁症状的发生直接产生影响。6．结论6．1火车司机抑郁症状发生较列车乘务员和地面工作人员低。6．2职业紧张是造成南昌铁路局福州机务段火车司机抑郁症状发生的重要因素；其中任务不适、任务模糊是引起火车司机抑郁症状发生的主要职业紧张源因素；心理紧张反应、人际关系紧张反应、躯体紧张反应是引起火车司机抑郁症状发生的主要职业紧张反应因素；与朋友相处情况是影响火车司机抑郁症状发生的调节因素。6.3构建火车司机职业紧张源、职业紧张反应对抑郁症状流行病学作用路径提示任务模糊和任务不适对抑郁症状的影响主要是通过其自身的直接效应实现的；任务过重、任务界限对抑郁症状的效应则是通过职业紧张反应实现的；个体应变能力可直接对抑郁症状产生影响，而自觉生活满意度对抑郁症状的影响，一部分是通过职业紧张反应间接产生的。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objectives：1. With the method of the Occupational Stress Inventory Revised edition (OSI-R),investigating the engine drivers’ occupational stress; describing the distributingfeature, the main occupational stress sources, types and influencing factors ofoccupational stress; putting forward the preventive measures to reduce occupationalstress.2. With the Self-Rating Depression Scale(SDS), evaluating the degree of train drivers’depressive symptoms, analyzing the main factors affecting train drivers’ depressivesymptoms, describing the hypothetical model of the relationship among the mainoccupational stress sources, occupational stress reactions and depressive symptomsand validating it with the structural equation model, exploring the relationship amongthe main occupational stress sources, occupational stress reactions and depressivesymptoms, which provides the basis ground for improving engine drivers’ mentalhealth by effective intervened measures to decrease occupational stress.Methods：From October2010to April2011, A self-administered questionnaire survey isconducted among1217engine drivers, without mental illness, who work in theFuzhou Depot, Nanchang Railway Bureau for more than one year, among which1067is valid, the valid recovery rate is88%.201train crew from Chongqing, Chengduwith similar age and work environment to engine drivers’ are cluster-sampled as thefirst observation group; and95ground staff in the locomotive depot as the secondobservation group.With the gauge tools of the OSI-R Scale, the SDS Scale and Type A behavior Scale,the thesis describes the extent of occupational stress and depressive symptoms;determines characteristics of the occupation, personality and demography of the threeoccupational groups, which are analysed how to affect the occupational stress anddepressive symptoms; Constructs the hypothetical model of the relationship among the main occupational stress sources, occupational stress reactions and depressivesymptoms and validates it with Amos16.0statistical software and the structuralequation model so as to analyze the direct effects or indirect effects among variables.ResultsⅠ. Researches on theoccupational stress sources, occupational stress reaction ofthe engine drivers, and influencing factors.1. Evaluation on the Reliability and validity of OSI-R and Type A behavior ScaleCronbach α factor of the OSI-R Scale, the subscale of occupational stress sourcesand occupational stress reactions is0.919,0.867and0.827respectively; the split-halfreliability is0.852,0.904and0.896respectively, which meet the homogenousrequirements for the psychometrics.Construct validity analysis shows that the load of each entry in OSI-R Scale, thevalue of which is above0.30, is statistically significant in the corresponding item; theanalysis of the main components in the subscale of occupational stress sources andoccupational stress reactions indicates that with extracting the main components thecumulative contribution rate is53.225%and54.426%respectively, which is higherthan the minimum standards of construct validit (40%)[40].2. Analysis of evaluation on the engine drivers’ occupational stressControlling and considering the impact of confounding factors, covariance analysisshows that the score of train drivers’s occupational stress is252.20±37.93, which islower than that of the train attendants (262.62±38.03)(P <0.01) but higher than theground staff (244.51±33.01); the score of occupational stress sources of train driversand train attendants is161.52±20.05,162.15±20.82respectively, which is higherthan that of the ground staff (158.13±17.97) and isn’t statistically significant; thescore of occupational stress reaction of train drivers is90.68±20.69, which issignificantly lower than that of train attendants (100.47±20.44)(P <0.01) buthigher than that of the ground staff (86.55±18.47).3. Analysis of engine drivers’ occupational stress sources and features of theoccupational stress reaction 3.1. Analysis of engine drivers’ occupational stress sourcesControlling and taking confounding factors into account, the score of “RI” subitemin the subscale of engine drivers’ occupational stress sources is27.58±4.55, and islower than that of the attendants (30.01±4.97), which is statistically significant (P<0.01). In the vector table “My job for my skills and interests”,“I feel a greatresponsibility to work”,“I can work to play”,“I can learn new techniques, newmethod in work”, the train drivers have higher scores than the ground staff and traincrew, which is statistically significant. The “PE” score of train drivers is37.14±6.63,higher than that of the crew score (34.11±6.38), which is statistically significant (P<0.01). In the vector table “My job is dangerous”,“My working hours are not fixed”,“I must highly concentrated”,“I work independently in the working hours”, the traindrivers have higher scores than the ground staff and train crew, which is statisticallysignificant.3.2. Analysis of influencing factors of train drivers’ occupational stressControlling and taking confounding factors into account, the scores of occupationalstress of three occupational groups and its four sub-items "vocational strain","psychological strain","interpersonal strain","physical strain" are lower than those ofthe attendants but higher than the ground staff, which is statistically significant. The"vocational strain" score of train drivers is20.53±5.82, which is lower than that ofthe crew (24.41±5.48),(P <0.01) and indicates that train drivers are concentrated andinterested in their work and perform well."psychological strain" score of train driversis24.37±7.19, which is significantly lower than that of the attendants (28.53±6.83)(P <0.01). The "interpersonal strain" score is21.63±4.76, which is lower than that ofthe attendance (23.19±5.33)(P <0.01) and indicates the negative interpersonalrelations; the "physical strain" score of train drivers is23.80±6.65, which is lowerthan that of the attendances (26.23±6.79)(P <0.01).3.3. The impact of occupational stress sources on occupational stress reactionFurther analyzing the impact of the occupational stress sources on occupationalstress reaction of train drivers, stepwise regression analysis shows that there’re sixsub-items of occupational stress sources affecting the stress reaction. While, the mostinfluencing factors are responsibility, physical environment and role ambiguity, the adjusted R2value of which is0.567,0.551,0.534respectively. There’re five sub-itemsaffecting train attendants’ stress reaction, the adjusted R2value of which is less thanthat of train drivers; there’re three influencing factors for the ground staff and theadjusted R~2value is the minimum.4. Analysis of influencing factors on train drivers’ occupational stressThe occupational stress score of train drivers without physical activity is262.24±36.31, which is significantly higher than that with physical activity (250.12±37.32)(P <0.01); the occupational stress score of train drivers who is tired of life andmarriage, maladjusted to environment, escape from self-accusation, indifferent tofriends is the highest(P <0.01); the occupational stress score of ordinary train driversis253.86±37.71which is significantly higher than that of power train drivers(234.56±37.31)(P<0.01). In addition, the occupational stress score of train driverswith type-A behavior tendencies and depressive symptoms is significantly higher thanthat of train drivers without those behavioral characteristics (P <0.01); the score ofunmarried group is higher than that of married group (P <0.05); the score of traindrivers with at least college education is higher than that of train drivers with highschool education (P <0.05).Multiple stepwise regression analysis shows that the significant influencing factorson the occupational stress are: depressive symptoms score, difficulties treatment,self-feeling of living conditions, length of service and environmental adaptability (P<0.01).5．Conclusions5.1Train drivers in Fuzhou Depot, Nanchang Railway Bureau, expose much higheroccupational stress source, of which role overload, high concentration, bearing theliability of risk and the physical environment are the main influencing factors. Thescore of "role insufficiency" is the lowest, which indicates that the skills and trainingfrom work can basically meet the work requirement of train drivers.5.2The occupational stress source is the most important influencing factor to theoccupational stress source and reaction of train drivers. 5.3Through their own psychological adjustment and the appropriate interventions(such as mandatory rest system), the occupational stress reaction of train driversreduced.5.4Difficulties processing, self-feeling of living conditions, length of service,environmental adaptability and depressive symptoms affect the extent of train drivers’occupational stress.Ⅱ. The study on the relationship between depressive symptoms and occupationalstress of train drivers and the epidemiological effect progress of depressivesymptoms1. Reliability and validity evaluation of Self-Rating Depression ScaleSelf-Rating Depression Scale’s Cronbach α is0.813and the split-half reliability is0.771, which meet the homogenous requirement of psychometrics on the scale.Construct validity analysis shows that the load of each entry in the corresponding itemin the Self-Rating Depression Scale is statistically significant, and the value of whichis greater than0.30; factors of characteristic roots extracted from the Self-RatingDepression Scale are greater than1, there’re three principal components selectedwhose cumulative contribution rate is42.523%and higher than the minimum standardof construct validity (40%)[40].2. The general situation of depressive symptoms of train driversDepressive symptoms score of train drivers is50.38±10.20, which is significantlylower than that of the train crew (52.99±11.43) and the ground staff (52.27±9.48)(P <0.01), all of which are higher than the national norm (41.88±10.51)[55]. Thepositive rate of train drivers’ depressive symptoms is the lowest (49.80%).3. The impact of the train drivers’ occupational stress on depressive symptoms3.1The impact of occupational stress score, occupational stress sources, stressreactions on depressive symptomsThe results shows that for no matter the train drivers or attendants, the scores andpositive rate of depressive symptom increase with the increasing scores ofoccupational stress, occupational stress sources, stress reactions. The trend chi-squareanalysis shows that it is statistically significant (P <0.01). The positive rate of traindrivers’ high occupational stress score group, high occupational stress sources group and high stress reactions group increase significantly, the ROR of which is3.312,2.675and2.865respectively which is significantly greater than that of the attendants(2.080,1.510,2.080).The partial correlation analysis on the train drivers’ occupational stress score anddepression score shows that the scores of the occupational stress, occupational stresssources, stress reaction are all associated with that of depressive symptoms (P <0.01),and the correlation coefficients are greater than that of the train attendants.Multivariate analysis also shows that in the consideration and control of otherconfounding factors, occupational stress and occupational stress reaction other thanlength of service and personal strain capacity are still the major risk factors for theimpact of train drivers’ depressive symptoms (OR=4.104,5.052).3.2The impact of the occupational stress sources on depressive symptoms of the traindriversWith the increasing scores of the six sub-items in the subscale of occupationalstress sources: role overload, role insufficiency, role ambiguity, role conflict,responsibility and physical environment and occupational stress reaction as well asthe increasing scores of its four sub-items: stress reaction, psychological stress,interpersonal stress, physical stress, the score of the train drivers’ depressivesymptoms increase (P <0.05). The above sub-items’ trend chi-square analysis ofdepression positive rate is significant (P <0.01); the ROR values of train drivers’ highrole insufficiency, high role ambiguity, high role boundary are2.522,2.551,2.347respectively, which is greater than that of attendants (ROR values are1.079,1.434,1.855). The ROR of high physical environment of train drivers is1.181which is lessthan that of attendants (1.619). The ROR values of high vocational strain group, highpsychological stress reaction group, high interpersonal stress reaction group and highphysical stress of train drivers are2.298,3.284,2.143, and2.516, which are greaterthan those of attendants (1.841,2.286,1.542, and2.359).Multivariate analysis shows that in the consideration and control of otherconfounding factors, role insufficiency and role ambiguity other than length of serviceand personal strain capacity are still the major risk factors for the impact of train drivers’ depressive symptoms (OR=1.989,4.423); the major occupational stressreactions affecting train drivers’ depressive symptoms are psychological stressreactions, interpersonal reactions and physical strain reaction (OR=2.559,2.091,2.344).4. Analysis of influencing factors on the train drivers’ depressionAnalyzing the Occupational stress adjustment factors on depressive symptoms, theresults show that the train drivers’ depression associated with train drivers who is tiredof life and marriage, maladjusted to environment, escape from self-accusation,indifferent to friends is the highest; the ROR are1.782,1.370,1.593,1.967.Multivariate analysis also shows that the personal ability with friends (OR=5.315) isan important factor of the train drivers’ depressive symptoms.Analyzing the working conditions of train drivers, it indicates that the score andthe positive rate of motor-train-set depressive symptoms are significantly lower thanthat of non-motor-train-set whose ROR is1.733times. The ROR of high standinggroup increases to1.421and the ROR of the high seniority is up to1.476, which is theinfluencing factor of depressive symptoms.5. Constructing the epidemiological effect model of train drivers’ occupational stressresources and occupational stress reaction on the depressive symptoms indicates thatrole insufficiency, role ambiguity, role overload and role boundary may impact ondepressive symptoms on the train drivers through the stress response; which roleinsufficiency and role ambiguity can directly affect the symptoms of depression.Self-feeling of life satisfaction and individual strain may impact on depressivesymptoms on the train drivers through the stress response; individual strain have andirect impact on the train drivers’ depressive symptoms.6. Conclusions6.1The depressive symptoms of the train drivers are lower than the train attendantsand the ground staff.6.2Occupational stress is the most important cause of depressive symptoms for thetrain drivers in Fuzhou Depot, Nanchang Railway Bureau. Role insufficiency and roleambiguity are the main occupational stress source factors affecting train drivers’ depressive symptoms; psychological stress reaction, interpersonal strain, physicalstrain are the main occupational stress reaction factor affecting train drivers’depressive symptoms; Personal strain capacity is the Occupational stress adjustmentfactors affecting train drivers’ depressive symptoms.6.3Constructing the epidemiological effect model of train drivers’ occupational stressresources and occupational stress reaction on the depressive symptoms indicates thatrole insufficiency and role ambiguity can directly affect the symptoms of depression.Self-feeling of life satisfaction may impact on depressive symptoms on the traindrivers through the stress response; individual strain have an direct impact on the traindrivers’ depressive symptoms.更多还原