The efficiency of treatment varied more than tenfold across disorders. Although coverage of some of the more efficient treatments should be extended, other factors justify continued use of less-efficient treatments for some disorders.

This meta-analytic review responds to promises in the research literature and public domain about the benefits of workplace mindfulness training. It synthesizes randomized controlled trial evidence from workplace-delivered training for changes in mindfulness, stress, mental health, wellbeing and work performance outcomes. Going beyond extant reviews, this paper explores the influence of variability in workforce and intervention characteristics for reducing perceived stress. Meta-effect estimates (Hedge's g) were computed using data from 23 studies. Results indicate beneficial effects following training for mindfulness (g=0.45, p<0.001) and stress (g=0.56, p<0.001); for the mental health indicators anxiety (g=0.62, p<0.001) and psychological distress (g=0.69, p<0.001); and for wellbeing (g=0.46, p=0.002) and sleep (g=0.26, p=0.003). No conclusions could be drawn from pooled data for burnout due to ambivalence in results, for depression due to publication bias, or for work performance due to insufficient data. The potential for integrating the construct of mindfulness within demands-resources, coping and prevention theories of work stress is considered in relation to the results. Limitations to study designs and reporting are addressed, and recommendations to advance research in this field are made.

Objective: To review the recent descriptive and social epidemiology of common mental disorders in the workplace, including prevalence, participation, work disability, and impact of quality of work, as well as to discuss the implications for identifying targets for clinical and preventive interventions. Method:We conducted a structured review of epidemiologic studies in community settings (that is, in the general population or in workplaces). Evidence was restricted to the peer-reviewed, published, English-language literature up to the end of June 2005. We further restricted evidence to studies that used recent classification systems; then, if evidence was insufficient, we reviewed studies that used standardized psychiatric screening scales. To distinguish this article from recent reviews of health and work quality, we focused on new areas of investigation and new evidence for established areas of investigation: underemployment, organizational justice, job control and demand, effort-reward imbalance, and atypical (nonpermanent) employment.Results: Depression and simple phobia were found to be the most prevalent disorders in the working population. The limited data on rates of participation suggested higher participation among people with depression, simple phobia, social phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. Depression and anxiety were more consistently associated with "presenteeism" (that is, lost productivity while at work) than with absenteeism, whether this was measured by cutback days or by direct questionnaires. Seven longitudinal studies, with an average sample size of 6264, showed a strong association between aspects of low job quality and incident depression and anxiety. There was some evidence that atypical work was associated with poorer mental health, although the findings for fixed-term work were mixed. Conclusions:Mental health risk reduction in the workplace is an important complement to clinical interventions for reducing the current and future burden of depression and anxiety in the workplace. (Can J Psychiatry 2006;51:63-75) Information on funding and support and author affiliations appears at the end of the article. Clinical Implications· The effect of depression and anxiety on work ability is significant, and maintaining capacity and productivity in the work role is an important goal of clinical treatment. · Quality of work in terms of control and demand, effort-reward imbalance, and organizational justice is a critical social influence on mental health and offers opportunities for mental health promotion and early intervention. · Identifying subpopulations in the workforce that may be at increased risk for depression and anxiety is an important area of future research both to inform early intervention and to encourage access to appropriate treatment. Limitations· Most population-based psychiatric surveys used crude measures of work disability. · Studies on the association of work quality and mental health all relied on screening instruments to assess psychiatric status; thus, these fin...

The construct of Psychological Capital (PsyCap) focuses on the positive psychological capacities of self‐efficacy, hope, optimism and resilience and their relationship with a range of desirable work attitudes, behaviours and organizational outcomes. There is now almost a decade of accumulated PsyCap research. However, a critical and synthesized analysis of the construct in terms of its theoretical conceptualization and psychometric properties is yet to appear in the literature. Consequently, this article aims to provide a comprehensive review and analysis of the PsyCap literature, focusing in particular on issues relevant to the psychometric profile of PsyCap as it is currently assessed. Six directives for advancing PsyCap research are proposed as part of an integrated research agenda aimed towards strengthening the conceptualization and measurement of PsyCap. Practitioner points This article provides a critical and synthesized psychometric‐focused review of the PsyCap construct and its application in the workplace. Several shortcomings of the construct and its primary measure are highlighted. Directives are proposed to further enhance the conceptualization and measurement of the construct and thus enhance its utility in the workplace.

Substantial proportions of persons with mental disorders that are not usually classified as major mental disorders reported moderate and severe disability. A generic measure of mental health-related disability was able to detect variations in disability among persons with different diagnoses. Although such a measure is not as sensitive as a disorder-specific measure developed for use in psychiatric populations, it can facilitate comparison of disability across common mental disorders.

Background: Few studies have systematically compared the relationship between lost work productivity (work impairment) and mental disorders using population surveys. Aims: (1) To identify the importance of individual mental disorders and disorder co-occurrences (comorbidity) as predictors of two measures of work impairment over the past month-work loss (number of days unable to perform usual activities) and work cutback (number of days where usual activities were restricted); (2) to examine whether different types of disorder have a greater impact on work impairment in some occupations than others; (3) to determine whether work impairment in those with a disorder is related to treatment seeking. Method: Data were based on full-time workers identified by the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being, a household survey of mental disorders modeled on the US National Comorbidity Survey. Diagnoses were of one-month DSM-IV affective, anxiety and substance-related disorders. Screening instruments generated likely cases of ICD-10 personality disorders. The association of disorder types and their co-occurrences with work impairment was examined using multivariate linear regression. Odds ratios determined the significance of mental disorder prevalence across occupations, and planned contrasts were used to test for differences in work impairment across occupations within disorder types. The relationship between work impairment and treatment seeking was determined for each broad diagnostic group with t-tests. Results: Depression, generalized anxiety disorder and personality disorders were predictive of work impairment after controlling for impairment due to physical disorders. Among pure and comorbid disorders, affective and comorbid anxiety-affective disorders respectively were associated with the greatest amount of work impairment. For all disorders, stronger associations were obtained for work cutback than for work loss. No relationship was found between type of occupation and the impact of different types of disorder on work impairment. Only 15% of people with any mental disorder had sought help in the past month. For any mental

The incomplete reporting of information relevant to process evaluation makes it difficult to identify reliable determinants of effective intervention implementation or outcomes.

No abstract