Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (3)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Keywords
- mental health (3) (remove)
Institute
BACKGROUND: Work capacity demands are a concept to describe which psychological capacities are required in a job. Assessing psychological work capacity demands is of specific importance when mental health problems at work endanger work ability. Exploring psychological work capacity demands is the basis for mental hazard analysis or rehabilitative action, e.g. in terms of work adjustment. OBJECTIVE: This is the first study investigating psychological work capacity demands in rehabilitation patients with and without mental disorders. METHODS: A structured interview on psychological work capacity demands (Mini-ICF-Work; Muschalla, 2015; Linden et al., 2015) was done with 166 rehabilitation patients of working age. All interviews were done by a state-licensed socio-medically trained psychotherapist. Inter-rater-reliability was assessed by determining agreement in independent co-rating in 65 interviews. For discriminant validity purposes, participants filled in the Short Questionnaire for Work Analysis (KFZA, Prumper et al., 1994). RESULTS: In different professional fields, different psychological work capacity demands were of importance. The Mini-ICF-Work capacity dimensions reflect different aspects than the KFZA. Patients with mental disorders were longer on sick leave and had worse work ability prognosis than patients without mental disorders, although both groups reported similar work capacity demands. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological work demands - which are highly relevant for work ability prognosis and work adjustment processes - can be explored and differentiated in terms of psychological capacity demands.
Work-anxieties are costly and need early intervention. The perception of being able to cope with work is a basic requirement for work ability. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether a cognitive behavioural, work-anxiety-coping group (WAG) intervention leads to better work-coping perception than an unspecific recreational group (RG). Heterogeneous people in medical rehabilitation, who were due to return to work, were interviewed concerning their work-anxieties, and either randomly assigned to a WAG (n=85) or a RG (n=95). The participants (with an average of 50years old [range 23-64]; 51% women; 70% workers or employees, 25% academics, 5% unskilled) followed the group intervention for four or six sessions. The perceived work-coping was assessed by self-rating (Inventory for Job-Coping and Return Intention JoCoRi) after each group session. Although participants had a slight temporary decrease in work-coping after group session two (from M-1=2.47 to M-2=2.28, d(Cohen)=-.22), the WAG led to the improvement of perceived work-coping over the intervention course (from M-1=2.47 to M-6=2.65, d(Cohen)=.18). In contrast, participants from the RG reported lower work-coping after six group sessions (from M-1=2.26 to M-6=2.02, d(Cohen)=-.18). It is considered that people with work-anxieties need training in work-coping. By focusing on recreation only, this may lead to deterioration of work-coping. Indeed, intervention designers should be aware of temporary deterioration (side effects) when confronting participants with work-coping.
People with mental disorders, especially personality disorders, often face low acceptance at work. This is particularly problematic when returning to work after sick leave, because it impedes reintegration into the former workplace. This study explores colleagues’ reactions towards a problematic worker dependent on the returning person’s reintegration strategy: The returning person undertaking changes in their behaviour is compared with the person requesting adjustments of the workplace. In an experimental study, 188 employed persons read one of four vignettes that described a return-to-work-situation of a problematic co-worker. Across all vignettes, the co-worker was depicted as having previously caused problems in the work team. In the first vignette, the co-worker did not change anything (control condition) when she returned to work; in the second, she asked for workplace adjustments; in the third vignette she initiated efforts to change her own behaviour; and the fourth vignette combined both workplace adjustments and behavioural change. Study participants were asked for their reactions towards the problematic co-worker. Vignettes that included a behavioural change evoked more positive reactions towards the co-worker than vignettes without any behavioural change. Asking for workplace adjustments alone did not yield more positive reactions compared to not initiating any change. When preparing employees with interactional problems for their return to work, it is not effective to only instruct them on their statutory entitlement for workplace adjustments. Instead, it is advisable to encourage them to proactively strive for behaviour changes.