Stress Management in Work Settings: A Critical Review of the Health Effects

Abstract

The large number of different stress-management techniques coupled with the wide range of health outcome measures used in stress intervention studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy of each technique and each outcome. Also, the quality of the methodology varied substantially among studies. Nevertheless, the most positive results across the various health outcomes were obtained with a combination of two or more techniques. None of the stress interventions was consistently effective in producing effects on job/organization-relevant outcomes, such as absenteeism or job satisfaction. To produce changes on these types of measures, stress interventions will need to alter or modify the sources of stress in the work environment. It can be said that stress management in work settings can be effective in enhancing worker physical and psychologic health, but the choice of which stress-management technique to use should be based on the specific health outcomes that are targeted for change.

A randomised worksite comparison of acceptance and commitment therapy and stress inoculation training

“…Worksite SMT programmes have traditionally been based on variants of Meichenbaum's (1985) stress inoculation training (SIT) protocol, providing a combination of cognitive restructuring, muscular relaxation, and/ or behavioural skills (e.g., problem solving) (Murphy, 1996). Reviews of SMT research indicate that these interventions are at least moderately effective in improving employees' psychological health (e.g., Murphy, 1996;Richardson & Rothstein, 2008;Saunders, Driskell, Johnston, & Salas, 1996;van der Klink et al, 2001). …”

Worksite stress management training: Moderated effects and clinical significance.

“…For example, while SMT is often described as secondary prevention (Richardson & Rothstein, 2008;van der Klink et al, 2001), it has also been classified as a primary level intervention (e.g., Reynolds & Briner, 1994;Reynolds & Shapiro, 1991). Moreover, reviews of worksite SMT research classify interventions simply as "preventive" or "curative" according to whether employees were screened for entry (curative) or whether the SMT program was offered to all employees (preventive) (Murphy, 1996). Unfortunately, labeling any single SMT program as preventive or curative (or indeed as primary, secondary, or tertiary) may obscure the high degree of sample heterogeneity occurring in evaluations of these worksite interventions (Bunce, 1997).…”

The benefits of interventions for work-related stress

“…With the increases in workloads of the past decades, the number of employees experiencing psychologic problems related to occupational stress has increased rapidly in Western countries. 2 At the societal level, costs are considerable in terms of absenteeism, loss of productivity, and health care consumption. In Britain, it is estimated that 40 million workdays are lost to the nation's economy owing to mental and emotional problems.…”