ObjectivesMany workers in high-risk occupations, such as soldiers, are exposed to stressors at work, increasing their risk of developing mental health conditions and substance abuse (MHC/SA). Disclosure can lead to both positive (eg, support) and negative (eg, discrimination) work outcomes, and therefore, both disclosure and non-disclosure can affect health, well-being and sustainable employment, making it a complex dilemma. The objective is to study barriers to and facilitators for disclosure in the military from multiple perspectives.DesignQualitative focus groups with soldiers with and without MHC/SA and military mental health professionals. Sessions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was done using a general inductive approach.SettingThe study took place within the Dutch military.ParticipantsIn total, 46 people participated in 8 homogeneous focus groups, including 3 perspectives: soldiers with MHC/SA (N=20), soldiers without MHC/SA (N=10) and military mental health professionals (N=16).ResultsFive barriers for disclosure were identified (fear of career consequences, fear of social rejection, lack of leadership support, lack of skills to talk about MHC/SA, masculine workplace culture) and three facilitators (anticipated positive consequences of disclosure, leadership support, work-related MHC/SA). Views of the stakeholder groups were highly congruent.ConclusionsAlmost all barriers (and facilitators) were related to fear for stigma and discrimination. This was acknowledged by all three perspectives, suggesting that stigma and discrimination are considerable barriers to sustainable employment and well-being. Supervisor knowledge, attitudes and behaviour were critical for disclosure, and supervisors thus have a key role in improving health, well-being and sustainable employment for soldiers with MHC/SA. Furthermore, adjustments could be made by the military on a policy level, to take away some of the fears that soldiers have when disclosing MHC/SA.

Purpose Studies are increasingly showing that health related stigma is a barrier to employment, but it is not known how. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and analyse studies that have directly or indirectly addressed ways in which stigma affects sustainable employment and well-being at work of people with disabilities. Methods Using a multiphase screening process, this review is based on a comprehensive literature search (2000–2019) carried out in six electronic databases: Embase, Web of Science, Medline Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar. Results 7.263 publications were identified; 96 studies were found eligible to be included in the review. 72% of the studies were conducted in North America or Europe. Few studies directly assessed how stigma affects the employment of people with disabilities. Most studies highlighted that attitudes and behaviour of employers formed a barrier to employment, as well as anticipated stigma and self-stigma in people with health problems. However, the findings also showed that the attitudes and behaviour of co-workers, health care professionals, reintegration professionals, customers, and family and friends could act as a barrier to employment although these influences are under-researched. Although many similarities were seen in the relevant findings of studies about both physical and mental disabilities, several nuances were found. Conclusion Stigma hampers sustainable employment and well-being in multiple ways. Whereas the number of publications on this topic is rapidly increasing, the roles of health care professionals, reintegration professionals, co-workers, customers, and family and friends particularly warrant more attention.

Background Globally, millions are exposed to stressors at work that increase their vulnerability to develop mental health conditions and substance misuse (such as soldiers, policemen, doctors). However, these types of professionals especially are expected to be strong and healthy, and this contrast may worsen their treatment gap. Although the treatment gap in the military has been studied before, perspectives of different stakeholders involved have largely been ignored, even though they play an important role. Aims To study the barriers and facilitators for treatment-seeking in the military, from three different perspectives. Method In total, 46 people participated, divided into eight homogeneous focus groups, including three perspectives: soldiers with mental health conditions and substance misuse (n = 20), soldiers without mental health conditions and substance misuse (n = 10) and mental health professionals (n = 16). Sessions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was done by applying a general inductive approach using ATLAS.ti-8.4.4 software. Results Five barriers for treatment-seeking were identified: fear of negative career consequences, fear of social rejection, confidentiality concerns, the ‘strong worker’ workplace culture and practical barriers. Three facilitators were identified: social support, accessibility and knowledge, and healthcare within the military. The views of the different stakeholder groups were highly congruent. Conclusions Barriers for treatment-seeking were mostly stigma related (fear of career consequences, fear of social rejection and the ‘strong worker’ workplace culture) and this was widely recognised by all groups. Social support from family, peers, supervisors and professionals were identified as important facilitators. A decrease in the treatment gap for mental health conditions and substance misuse is needed and these findings provide direction for future research and destigmatising interventions.