Purpose Whether or not to disclose mental illness or mental health issues in the work environment is a highly sensitive dilemma. It can facilitate keeping or finding paid employment, but can also lead to losing employment or to not being hired, because of discrimination and stigma. Research questions were: (1) what do stakeholders see as advantages and disadvantages of disclosing mental illness or mental health issues in the work environment?; (2) what factors are of influence on a positive outcome of disclosure? Methods A focus group study was conducted with five different stakeholder groups: people with mental illness, Human Resources professionals, employers, work reintegration professionals, and mental health advocates. Sessions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was performed by two researchers using AtlasTi-7.5. Results were visually represented in a diagram to form a theoretical model. Results Concerning (dis-)advantages of disclosure, six themes emerged as advantages (improved relationships, authenticity, work environment support, friendly culture) and two as disadvantages (discrimination and stigma). Of influence on the disclosure outcome were: Aspects of the disclosure process, workplace factors, financial factors, and employee factors. Stakeholders generally agreed, although distinct differences were also found and discussed in the paper. Conclusion As shown from the theoretical model, the (non-) disclosure process is complex, and the outcome is influenced by many factors, most of which cannot be influenced by the individual with mental illness. However, the theme 'Aspects of the disclosure process', including subthemes: who to disclose to, timing, preparation, message content and communication style is promising for improving work participation of people with mental illness or mental health issues, because disclosers can positively influence these aspects themselves.

Background People with an intellectual disability value work as a significant part of their lives, and many of them want to participate in regular paid employment. Current estimates show that the number of people with ID who have some form of paid employment are very low, ranging from 9 to 40 % across different countries, despite legislations. This review examines papers published in the past 20 years in an attempt to answer the following research question: ‘What work environment-related factors contribute to obtaining or maintaining work in competitive employment for people with an intellectual disability?’ Method The databases of PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase and Web of Science were searched for relevant papers published between 1993 and 2013. All papers were independently screened by two researchers. Methodological quality of the studies was evaluated, and data on work environment-related factors stimulating employment for people with intellectual disabilities were extracted and grouped into categories. Results A total of 1932 articles were retrieved. After extensive screening for relevance and quality, 26 articles were included in this review. Four themes/categories with work environment-related factors that could influence work participation were distinguished. Five studies were conducted on employers’ decisions and opinions. Eight focused on job content and performance, and eight on workplace interaction and culture. Five studies evaluated support by job coaches. Conclusion Despite ongoing legislation to promote participation of people with intellectual disabilities in the paid workforce, research in this area is still extremely scarce. In the past 20 years, very few studies have focused on work environment-related factors that can enhance competitive work for people with intellectual disabilities. This review shows that relevant work environment-related factors for obtaining and maintaining work in competitive employment include supporting the employers by paying specific attention to: employer’s decisions, job content, integration and work culture and job coaches. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10926-015-9586-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAlthough practice guidelines are important tools to improve quality of care, implementation remains challenging. To improve adherence to an evidence-based guideline for the management of mental health problems, we developed a tailored implementation strategy targeting barriers perceived by occupational physicians (OPs). Feasibility and impact on OPs’ barriers were evaluated.MethodsOPs received 8 training-sessions in small peer-learning groups, aimed at discussing the content of the guideline and their perceived barriers to adhere to guideline recommendations; finding solutions to overcome these barriers; and implementing solutions in practice. The training had a plan-do-check-act (PDCA) structure and was guided by a trainer. Protocol compliance and OPs’ experiences were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Using a questionnaire, impact on knowledge, attitude, and external barriers to guideline adherence was investigated before and after the training.ResultsThe training protocol was successfully conducted; guideline recommendations and related barriers were discussed with peers, (innovative) solutions were found and implemented in practice. The participating 32 OPs were divided into 6 groups and all OPs attended 8 sessions. Of the OPs, 90% agreed that the peer-learning groups and the meetings spread over one year were highly effective training components. Significant improvements (p < .05) were found in knowledge, self-efficacy, motivation to use the guideline and its applicability to individual patients. After the training, OPs did not perceive any barriers related to knowledge and self-efficacy. Perceived adherence increased from 48.8% to 96.8% (p < .01).ConclusionsThe results imply that an implementation strategy focusing on perceived barriers and tailor-made implementation interventions is a feasible method to enhance guideline adherence. Moreover, the strategy contributed to OPs’ knowledge, attitudes, and skills in using the guideline. As a generic approach to overcome barriers perceived in specific situations, this strategy provides a useful method to guideline implementation for other health care professionals too.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0364-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Computer-based interventions target improvement of physical and emotional functioning in patients with chronic pain and functional somatic syndromes. However, it is unclear to what extent which interventions work and for whom. This systematic review and meta-analysis (registered at PROSPERO, 2016: CRD42016050839) assesses efficacy relative to passive and active control conditions, and explores patient and intervention factors. Controlled studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Pooled standardized mean differences by comparison type, and somatic symptom, health-related quality of life, functional interference, catastrophizing, and depression outcomes were calculated at post-treatment and at 6 or more months follow-up. Risk of bias was assessed. Sub-group analyses were performed by patient and intervention characteristics when heterogeneous outcomes were observed. Maximally, 30 out of 46 eligible studies and 3,387 participants were included per meta-analysis. Mostly, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapies were identified. Significantly higher patient reported outcomes were found in comparisons with passive control groups (standardized mean differences ranged between -.41 and -.18), but not in comparisons with active control groups (SMD = -.26 - -.14). For some outcomes, significant heterogeneity related to patient and intervention characteristics. To conclude, there is a minority of good quality evidence for small positive average effects of computer-based (cognitive) behavior change interventions, similar to traditional modes. These effects may be sustainable. Indications were found as of which interventions work better or more consistently across outcomes for which patients. Future process analyses are recommended in the aim of better understanding individual chances of clinically relevant outcomes.

Background: Stigma can be a barrier for workers experiencing a mental illness to access accommodations at work. However, work accommodations may be necessary to maintain a worker's ability to work. Therefore, it may be important to develop effective interventions to address workplace stigma. Objective: To determine (1) what proportion of workers would probably disclose their mental health issue to their manager, (2) what are the motivating factors for the decision of whether or not to disclose, and (3) what would potentially change the disclosure decision? Methods: A link to a Web-based questionnaire was sent to a nationally representative sample of 1671 Dutch adults over 18 years of age. The response rate was 74%. We focused on the 892 respondents who indicated they were either employed for pay or looking for employment, not in management positions, and never experienced a mental health issue. This group comprised 73% of the total sample. They were asked if they would disclose their mental health issue to their manager. For what reasons would they disclose/not disclose the issue? And, what could change their decision? Results: We found that almost 75% of workers would disclose to their managers. The perceived relationship with their managers and feelings of responsibility to their workplaces were important contributors to the decision. A large minority of workers would not tell, preferring to deal with their issues alone. In addition, a significant proportion of workers would choose not to disclose fearing negative consequences. Conclusion: Our results indicate that the majority of these Dutch workers would disclose a mental health issue to their managers. The relationship with the manager plays a central role. The advice from a trusted individual and the experiences of colleagues are also significant factors in the disclosure decision.

Background: Stigma can be a barrier to accessing effective interventions and work accommodations for mental illnesses. Fear of stigma's concomitant prejudice and discrimination can inhibit workers from asking for help. Thus, it may be important to develop effective interventions addressing workplace stigma. To identify important targets for these interventions, this study addresses three questions: (1) what proportion of workers experiencing mental health issues disclosed their mental health issue to their managers, (2) what factors did they identify as contributing to their disclosure decisions, and (3) what were the consequences of their decisions?Methods: The dataset is comprised of responses from respondents who were randomly drawn from a nationally representative sample of working Dutch adults who completed a web-based survey in February 2018. Respondents indicating they either had or have mental health issues were asked three sets of questions focusing on: (1) Did you disclose your mental health issue to you manager? (2) For what reasons did you disclose/not disclose the issue? (3) What were the consequences of your disclosure decision?Results: About 73% of respondents with lived experience with mental health issues told their managers about their mental health issue. The structure of the survey questions identified four groups of workers who either: (1) disclosed and had a positive experience (64.2%), (2) disclosed and had a negative experience (9.0%), (3) did not disclose and had a positive experience (22.6%), or (4) did not disclose and had a negative experience (4.2%).Conclusion: Our results reflect workers' diverse preferences for disclosing their mental health issues to their managers. Understanding both the factors that contributed to the decision to disclose and the consequences of disclosure decisions could help to better target workplace educational programs and interventions to address workplace stigma. Our findings suggest that addressing workplace stigma may not be as straightforward as requiring all employees to receive anti-stigma education. Rather, education should support workers to make the appropriate disclosure decision based on their workplace contexts. Future research is needed to understand the optimal ways for workers struggling with mental health issues to ask and receive help if they need it.

No abstract

ObjectivesStigma may negatively affect line managers’ intention to hire people with mental health problems (MHP). This study aims to evaluate line managers’ knowledge and attitudes concerning job applicants with MHP, and to assess which factors are associated with the intention (not) to hire an applicant with MHP.MethodsA sample of Dutch line managers (N=670) filled out a questionnaire on their knowledge, attitudes and experiences concerning applicants/employees with MHP. Descriptive analyses and multiple regression analyses were used.ResultsThe majority (64%) was reluctant to hire a job applicant with MHP, despite the fact that only 7% had negative and 52% had positive personal experiences with such employees. Thirty per cent were reluctant to hire an applicant if they knew the applicant had past MHP. Associated with higher reluctance to hire an applicant with MHP were the concerns that it will lead to long-term sickness absence (β (95% CI)=0.39 (0.23 to 0.55)), that the employee cannot handle the work (β (95% CI)=0.16 (0.00 to 0.33)) that one cannot count on the employee (β (95% CI)=0.41 (0.23 to 0.58)) and higher manager education level (β (95% CI)=0.25 (0.05 to 0.44)). Conversely, associated with positive hiring intentions was being in favour of diversity and/or inclusive enterprise (β(95% CI)=−0.64 (−0.87 to −0.41)).ConclusionsAs the majority of managers were reluctant to hire applicants with MHP, and even 30% were reluctant to hire applicants who had past MHP, these findings have major implications for social inclusion in the Netherlands, where about 75% of employees would disclose MHP at work.