The latest medical research on Occupational & Environmental Medicine

Evidence suggests that emotional dissonance, the imbalance between true feelings and those displayed to meet work standards, heightens the risk of mental distress. In nursing occupations, exerting such emotional effort is a part of the job role. Drawing from the job demands-resources model, high-quality leadership is a resource that may assist employees in coping with stressors. We examined whether quality of leadership mitigated the potential adverse impact of emotional dissonance on mental health.

In 2019, 1426 home-care workers from 130 organizational units were surveyed, with follow-ups after 8 and 14 months. Prospective associations between emotional dissonance (the Frankfurt Emotion Work Scales) and mental distress (Hopkins Symptom Checklist, HSCL-5), including interactions between emotional dissonance and leadership behaviors (Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work), were determined using lagged linear mixed models.

Emotional dissonance was positively associated with mental distress (adjusted P<0.05), whereas supportive, empowering, and fair leadership were negatively associated with mental distress (adjusted P<0.05). All three investigated sources of leadership behaviors moderated the direct association between emotional dissonance and mental distress (adjusted P<0.05). Emotional dissonance and mental distress were reciprocally related; an increase in either will heighten the level of the other. Leadership behaviors did not moderate the reversed association between emotional dissonance and mental distress (adjusted P>0.05).

Supportive, empowering, and fair leadership buffers the association of emotional dissonance on mental distress. Strategic interventions that enhance the quality of leadership may help prevent mental distress among employees in professions with emotionally demanding tasks.

In environmental epidemiology, we use an array of tools from various, related disciplines to answer key questions about environmental exposures in relation to health outcomes. Typically, we ask questions related to what, who, where, when, and how. We value these questions because they contribute to novel scientific discovery and our understanding of disease etiology linked to environmental exposures. In addition, these questions help us better understand who might be at highest risk of exposure and subsequent risk of disease. Although necessary for the goals of environmental epidemiology, these questions are insufficient for addressing environmental health disparities. Specifically, these questions may be able to help us describe exposure-health outcome associations but are limited in their ability to move beyond identification to intervening on observed disparities to achieve environmental health equity.

We sought to emphasize the need to value and routinely add the key question of "Why?" in environmental epidemiological studies. In asking this additional critical question, we can identify and incorporate the structural determinants and drivers of environmental exposure disparities and determine whether these factors are linked to existing and historically recalcitrant health disparities. Further, we can design effective studies that build on existing frameworks to address the fundamental causes of environmental health disparities.

This commentary underscores the need to routinely incorporate "why" questions in the practice of environmental epidemiology. By asking and addressing "Why?" we can employ better, more solution-oriented study designs, improve data collection, and enhance our ability to collaborate with diverse study populations through trust-building and community-engaged research. Incorporating these approaches will move environmental epidemiology forward from mostly documenting to actively addressing environmental health disparities. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14513.