BACKGROUND: The organizational justice model can evaluate job stressor from decision-making process, attitude of managerial or senior staff toward their junior workers, and unfair resource distribution. Stress from organizational injustice could be harmful to workers' mental health. The purpose of this study is to explore the association between organizational justice and depressive symptoms in a securities company. METHODS: To estimate organizational justice, a translated Moorman's organizational justice evaluation questionnaire (Korean) was employed. Cronbach's α coefficient was estimated to assess the internal consistency of the translated questionnaire. To assess depressive symptoms, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale was used. The link between the sub-concepts of the organizational justice model and depressive symptoms was assessed utilizing multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: The risk of depressive symptoms was significantly higher among workers with higher levels of all subcategory of organizational injustice. In the full adjusted model odds ratio (OR) of higher level of procedural injustice 2.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58–4.90), OR of the higher level of relational injustice 4.25 (95% CI, 2.66–6.78), OR of higher level of distributional injustice 4.53 (95% CI, 2.63–7.83) respectively. Cronbach's α coefficient of the Korean version was 0.93 for procedural justice, 0.93 for relational justice, and 0.95 for distributive justice. CONCLUSIONS: A higher level of organizational injustice was linked to higher prevalence of depressive symptoms among workers in a company of financial industry.
Depression ; Epidemiologic Studies ; Logistic Models ; Mental Health ; Odds Ratio ; Prevalence ; Social Justice

Background: /Aim: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib are currently available as first-line therapy for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, comparative efficacy studies are still limited. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of these treatments in HCC patients with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT). Methods: We retrospectively included patients who received either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib as first-line systemic therapy for HCC with PVTT. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints included progressionfree survival (PFS) and disease control rate (DCR) determined by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors, version 1.1. Results: A total of 52 patients were included: 30 received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 22 received lenvatinib. The median follow-up duration was 6.4 months (interquartile range, 3.9-9.8). The median OS was 10.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7 to not estimated) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 5.8 months (95% CI, 4.8 to not estimated) with lenvatinib (P=0.26 by log-rank test). There was no statistically significant difference in OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.34-1.49; P=0.37). The median PFS was similar (P=0.63 by log-rank test), with 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.3-7.7) for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.6-5.8) for lenvatinib (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.51-1.69; P=0.80). HRs were similar after inverse probability treatment weighting. The DCRs were 23.3% and 18.2% in patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib, respectively (P=0.74). Conclusion The effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib was comparable for the treatment of HCC with PVTT.