Implementing interventions to reduce work-related stress among health-care workers: an investment appraisal from the employer's perspective.

PURPOSE: The Stress-Prevention@Work implementation strategy has been demonstrated to be successful in reducing stress in employees. Now, we assess the economic return-on-investment to see if it would make for a favourable business case for employers. METHODS: Data were collected from 303 health-care workers assigned to either a waitlisted control condition (142 employees in 15 teams) or to Stress-Prevention@Work (161 employees in 15 teams). Main outcome was productivity losses measured using the Trimbos and iMTA Cost questionnaire in Psychiatry. Measurements were taken at baseline, 6, and 12 months post-baseline. RESULTS: The per-employee costs of the strategy were €50. Net monetary benefits were the benefits (i.e., improved productivity) minus the costs (i.e., intervention costs) and were the main outcome of this investment appraisal. Per-employee net benefits amounted to €2981 on average, which was an almost 60-fold payout of the initial investment of €50. There was a 96.7% likelihood for the modest investment of €50 to be offset by cost savings within 1 year. Moreover, a net benefit of at least €1000 still has a likelihood of 88.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In general, there was a high likelihood that Stress-Prevention@Work offers an appealing business case from the perspective of employers, but the employer should factor in the additional per-employee costs of the stress-reducing interventions. Still, if these additional costs were as high as €2981, then costs and benefits would break even. This study was registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register, trial code: NTR5527.

Process Evaluation of a Digital Platform-Based Implementation Strategy Aimed at Work Stress Prevention in a Health Care Organization.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the process and feasibility of a digital platform-based implementation strategy aimed at work stress prevention. METHODS: The process evaluation was performed alongside a controlled trial within a health care organization, in the experimental group (N = 221). Mental models, context, and barriers and facilitators were measured. In addition, dose delivered, reach, and dose received were assessed. RESULTS: Employees reported relatively high readiness for change. Personnel shortage and a recent restructuring of the organization hindered use of the strategy. Low management support and high turnover stagnated strategy deployment. Dose delivered was 13/15, reach was 11/15, and dose received was 5/15. CONCLUSIONS: Strategy implementation was moderately successful, as sustained strategy use by the teams appeared to be a challenge. The strategy can be feasible with sufficient management support and resources.

Effectiveness of a digital platform-based implementation strategy to prevent work stress in a healthcare organization: a 12-month follow-up controlled trial.

Objectives Healthcare workers frequently deal with work stress. This is a risk factor for adverse mental and physical health effects. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a digital platform-based implementation strategy - compared to a control group - on stress, work stress determinants (ie. psychosocial work factors) and the level of implementation among healthcare workers. Methods By way of matching, 30 teams from a healthcare organization were assigned to the experimental (15 teams; N=252) or wait-list control (15 teams; N=221) group. The experimental group received access to the strategy for 12 months. They were asked to complete the 5-step protocol within six months. The primary outcome was stress (DASS-21) and secondary outcomes were psychological demands, social support, autonomy, and the level of implementation. Questionnaire-based data were collected at baseline, and at 6- and 12-months follow-up. Linear mixed model analyses were used to test differences between the two groups. Results In total, 210 participants completed the baseline questionnaire and at least one follow-up questionnaire. There was a significant effect of the strategy on stress in favor of the experimental group [B=-0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.81 - -0.09]. No statistically significant differences were found for any secondary outcomes. Conclusions The strategy showed potential for primary prevention of work stress, mainly explained by an increase in stress in the control group that was prevented in the experimental group. More research is necessary to assess the full potential of the strategy.

Work stress prevention needs of employees and supervisors.

BACKGROUND: Work stress prevention can reduce health risks for individuals, as well as organisational and societal costs. The success of work stress interventions depends on proper implementation. Failure to take into account the needs of employees and supervisors can hinder intervention implementation. This study aimed to explore employee and supervisor needs regarding organisational work stress prevention. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with employees (n = 7) and supervisors (n = 8) from different sectors, such as the finance, health care, and services industry. The interviews focused on respondents' needs regarding the prevention of work stress within an organisational setting. Performing thematic analysis, topics and themes were extracted from the verbatim transcribed interviews using Atlas.ti. RESULTS: Both employees and supervisors reported a need for: 1) communication about work stress, 2) attention for determinants of work stress, 3) supportive circumstances (prerequisites) for work stress prevention, 4) involvement of various stakeholders in work stress prevention, and 5) availability of work stress prevention measures. Both employees and supervisors expressed the need for supervisors to communicate about work stress. Employees and supervisors reported similar psychosocial work factors that should be targeted for prevention (e.g., social support and autonomy). There was greater variety in the sub-themes within communication about work stress and supportive circumstances for work stress prevention in supervisor responses, and greater variety in the sub-themes within availability of work stress prevention measures in employee responses. CONCLUSIONS: Both employees and supervisors were explicit about who should take part in communication about work stress, what prerequisites for work stress prevention should exist, and which stakeholders should be involved. These results can inform work stress prevention practice, supporting selection and implementation of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register, trial code: NTR5527 .

The association between exposure to psychosocial work factors and mental health in older employees, a 3-year follow-up study.

PURPOSE: Unfavourable exposure to psychosocial work factors threatens older employees' mental health, and their sustained employment. This study assesses whether an improved compared to stable unfavourable and stable favourable exposure to psychosocial work factors is associated with a change in mental health in older employees at 3-year follow-up. METHODS: The current study used data from the Study on Transitions in Employment, Ability and Motivation (STREAM), in workers aged 45-65 years (n = 5249). Two-year (2010-2012) exposure was assessed for psychological demands, autonomy, support, mental load, and distributive justice. Linear regression analyses were performed to compare improved exposure to unfavourable psychosocial work factors with stable unfavourable and stable favourable exposure and mental health at follow-up (2013), corrected for confounders. Analyses were stratified for age groups (45-54 and 55-65 years) and gender. RESULTS: In certain subgroups, stable unfavourable exposure to psychological demands, autonomy, support, and distributive justice was associated with a significantly lower mental health score than improved exposure. Stable favourable exposure to support was associated with a higher mental health score than improved support, whereas stable favourable exposure to autonomy was associated with a lower mental health score compared to improved exposure. CONCLUSIONS: There is a longitudinal association between changes in exposure to psychosocial work factors and mental health. Improvement in unfavourable exposure to psychosocial work factors was associated with improved mental health. This is important information for organisations that consider deploying measures to improve the psychosocial work environment of older workers.

Stress Prevention@Work: a study protocol for the evaluation of a multifaceted integral stress prevention strategy to prevent employee stress in a healthcare organization: a cluster controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adequate implementation of work-related stress management interventions can reduce or prevent work-related stress and sick leave in organizations. We developed a multifaceted integral stress-prevention strategy for organizations from several sectors that includes a digital platform and collaborative learning network. The digital platform contains a stepwise protocol to implement work-related stress-management interventions. It includes stress screeners, interventions and intervention providers to facilitate access to and the selection of matching work-related stress-management interventions. The collaborative learning network, including stakeholders from various organizations, plans meetings focussing on an exchange of experiences and good practices among organizations for the implementation of stress prevention measures. This paper describes the design of an integral stress-prevention strategy, Stress Prevention@Work, and the protocol for the evaluation of: 1) the effects of the strategy on perceived stress and work-related outcomes, and 2) the barriers and facilitators for implementation of the strategy. METHODS: The effectiveness of Stress Prevention@Work will be evaluated in a cluster controlled trial, in a large healthcare organization in the Netherlands, at six and 12 months. An independent researcher will match teams on working conditions and size and allocate the teams to the intervention or control group. Teams in the intervention group will be offered Stress Prevention@Work. For each intervention team, one employee is responsible for applying the strategy within his/her team using the digital platform and visiting the collaborative learning network. Using a waiting list design, the control group will be given access to the strategy after 12 months. The primary outcome is the employees' perceived stress measured by the stress subscale of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Secondary outcome measures are job demands, job resources and the number of preventive stress measures implemented at the team level. Alongside the trial, a process evaluation, including barriers and facilitators of the implementation of Stress Prevention@Work, will be conducted in one healthcare organisation. DISCUSSION: If Stress Prevention@Work is found to be effective in one healthcare organisation, further implementation on a broader scale might lead to increased productivity and decreased stress and sick leave in other organizations. Results are expected in 2018. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR5527 . Registered 7 Dec 2015.

The role of autonomy and social support in the relation between psychosocial safety climate and stress in health care workers.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers are exposed to psychosocial work factors. Autonomy and social support are psychosocial work factors that are related to stress, and are argued to largely result from the psychosocial safety climate within organisations. This study aimed to assess to what extent the relation between psychosocial safety climate and stress in health care workers can be explained by autonomy and social support. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, psychosocial safety climate, stress, autonomy, co-worker support, and supervisor support were assessed using questionnaires, in a sample of health care workers (N = 277). Linear mixed models analyses were performed to assess to what extent social support and autonomy explained the relation between psychosocial safety climate and stress. RESULTS: A lower psychosocial safety climate score was associated with significantly higher stress (B = -0.21, 95% CI = -0.27 - -0.14). Neither co-worker support, supervisor support, nor autonomy explained the relation between psychosocial safety climate and stress. Taken together, autonomy and both social support measures diminished the relation between psychosocial safety climate and stress by 12% (full model: B = -0.18, 95% CI = -0.25 - -0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Autonomy and social support together seemed to bring about a small decrease in the relation between psychosocial safety climate and stress in health care workers. Future research should discern whether other psychosocial work factors explain a larger portion of this relation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register, trial code: NTR5527 .

Process variables in organizational stress management intervention evaluation research: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to explore which process variables are used in stress management intervention (SMI) evaluation research. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using seven electronic databases. Studies were included if they reported on an SMI aimed at primary or secondary stress prevention, were directed at paid employees, and reported process data. Two independent researchers checked all records and selected the articles for inclusion. Nielsen and Randall's model for process evaluation was used to cluster the process variables. The three main clusters were context, intervention, and mental models. RESULTS: In the 44 articles included, 47 process variables were found, clustered into three main categories: context (two variables), intervention (31 variables), and mental models (14 variables). Half of the articles contained no reference to process evaluation literature. The collection of process evaluation data mostly took place after the intervention and at the level of the employee. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that there is great heterogeneity in methods and process variables used in process evaluations of SMI. This, together with the lack of use of a standardized framework for evaluation, hinders the advancement of process evaluation theory development.