PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare two approaches for a worker's health surveillance (WHS) mental module on work functioning and work-related mental health. METHODS:Nurses and allied health professionals from one organisation were cluster-randomised at ward level to e-mental health care (EMH) (N = 579) or occupational physician care (OP) (N = 591). Both groups received screening and personalised feedback on impaired work functioning and mental health. Positively screened participants received an invitation to follow a self-help EMH intervention, or for a consultation with an OP. The primary outcome was impaired work functioning. Follow-up was performed after 3 and 6 months. Linear mixed models were applied to determine differences. Non-inferiority of the EMH-care approach was demonstrated if the mean absolute improvement on work functioning in the OP-care group was ≤10 points higher than the EMH-care group. RESULTS: Analyses were performed on the positively screened participants (almost 80 %) (EMH N = 75; OP N = 108) and all participants (EMH N = 98; OP N = 142). Both groups improved over time regarding impaired work functioning. A considerable percentage of participants had improved relevantly at follow-up regarding work functioning (3 months: EMH 30 %, OP 46 %; 6 months: EMH 36 %, OP 41 %) compared to baseline. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups, and the difference did not exceed the pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority. CONCLUSION: The OP-care approach for a WHS mental module trended towards better performance in targeting work functioning, but our findings indicate that the EMH-care approach was non-inferior. However, the high dropout rate and low compliance to EMH interventions should be taken into account.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare two approaches for a worker's health surveillance (WHS) mental module on work functioning and work-related mental health. METHODS: Nurses and allied health professionals from one organisation were cluster-randomised at ward level to e-mental health care (EMH) (N = 579) or occupational physician care (OP) (N = 591). Both groups received screening and personalised feedback on impaired work functioning and mental health. Positively screened participants received an invitation to follow a self-help EMH intervention, or for a consultation with an OP. The primary outcome was impaired work functioning. Follow-up was performed after 3 and 6 months. Linear mixed models were applied to determine differences. Non-inferiority of the EMH-care approach was demonstrated if the mean absolute improvement on work functioning in the OP-care group was ≤10 points higher than the EMH-care group. RESULTS: Analyses were performed on the positively screened participants (almost 80 %) (EMH N = 75; OP N = 108) and all participants (EMH N = 98; OP N = 142). Both groups improved over time regarding impaired work functioning. A considerable percentage of participants had improved relevantly at follow-up regarding work functioning (3 months: EMH 30 %, OP 46 %; 6 months: EMH 36 %, OP 41 %) compared to baseline. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups, and the difference did not exceed the pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority. CONCLUSION: The OP-care approach for a WHS mental module trended towards better performance in targeting work functioning, but our findings indicate that the EMH-care approach was non-inferior. However, the high dropout rate and low compliance to EMH interventions should be taken into account.
Authors: Sarah M Ketelaar; Fania R Gärtner; Linda Bolier; Odile Smeets; Karen Nieuwenhuijsen; Judith K Sluiter Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: S B Harvey; N Glozier; M Henderson; S Allaway; P Litchfield; K Holland-Elliott; M Hotopf Journal: Occup Med (Lond) Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 1.611
Authors: Miquel Codony; Jordi Alonso; Josué Almansa; Sebastian Bernert; Giovanni de Girolamo; Ron de Graaf; Josep Maria Haro; Viviane Kovess; Gemma Vilagut; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Dennis de Ruijter; Math Candel; Eline Suzanne Smit; Hein de Vries; Ciska Hoving Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Felicia S Los; Henk F van der Molen; Carel T J Hulshof; Angela G E M de Boer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ellen J M Bakker; Jos H A M Kox; Cécile R L Boot; Anneke L Francke; Allard J van der Beek; Pepijn D D M Roelofs Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: Jacqueline Sin; Gian Galeazzi; Elicia McGregor; Jennifer Collom; Anna Taylor; Barbara Barrett; Vanessa Lawrence; Claire Henderson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 5.428