Margot C W Joosen1, Evelien P M Brouwers1, Karlijn M van Beurden1, Berend Terluin2, Jani H Ruotsalainen3, Jong-Min Woo4, Kyeong-Sook Choi5, Hisashi Eguchi6, Jiro Moriguchi7, Jac J L van der Klink8, Jaap van Weeghel9. 1. Tilburg University, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tranzo Scientific Center for Care and Welfare, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 2. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Kuopio, Finland. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Stress Research Institute, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Neuropsychiatry, Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Public Health, Kitasto University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, Japan. 7. Department of Occupational Health Promotion, Kyoto Industrial Health Association, Kyoto, Japan. 8. Tilburg University, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tranzo Scientific Center for Care and Welfare, Tilburg, The Netherlands Department of Health Sciences, Division of Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 9. Tilburg University, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tranzo Scientific Center for Care and Welfare, Tilburg, The Netherlands Phrenos Centre of Expertise, Utrecht, The Netherlands Parnassia Group, Dijk en Duin Mental Health Center, Castricum, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared available guidelines on the management of mental disorders and stress-related psychological symptoms in an occupational healthcare setting and determined their development and reporting quality. METHODS: To identify eligible guidelines, we systematically searched National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines International Network Library and PubMed. Members of the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH), were also consulted. Guidelines recommendations were compared and reporting quality was assessed using the AGREE II instrument. RESULTS: Of 2126 titles retrieved, 14 guidelines were included: 1 Japanese, 2 Finnish, 2 Korean, 2 British and 7 Dutch. Four guidelines were of high-reporting quality. Best described was the Scope and Purpose, and the poorest described were competing interests (Editorial independence) and barriers and facilitators for implementation (Applicability). Key recommendations were often difficult to identify. Most guidelines recommend employing an inventory of symptoms, diagnostic classification, performance problems and workplace factors. All guidelines recommend specific return-to-work interventions, and most agreed on psychological treatment and communication between involved stakeholders. DISCUSSION: Practice guidelines to address work disability due to mental disorders and stress-related symptoms are available in various countries around the world, however, these guidelines are difficult to find. To promote sharing, national guidelines should be accessible via established international databases. The quality of the guideline's developmental process varied considerably. To increase quality and applicability, guideline developers should adopt a common structure for the development and reporting of their guidelines, for example Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. Owing to differences in social systems, developers can learn from each other through reviews of this kind. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: We compared available guidelines on the management of mental disorders and stress-related psychological symptoms in an occupational healthcare setting and determined their development and reporting quality. METHODS: To identify eligible guidelines, we systematically searched National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guidelines International Network Library and PubMed. Members of the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH), were also consulted. Guidelines recommendations were compared and reporting quality was assessed using the AGREE II instrument. RESULTS: Of 2126 titles retrieved, 14 guidelines were included: 1 Japanese, 2 Finnish, 2 Korean, 2 British and 7 Dutch. Four guidelines were of high-reporting quality. Best described was the Scope and Purpose, and the poorest described were competing interests (Editorial independence) and barriers and facilitators for implementation (Applicability). Key recommendations were often difficult to identify. Most guidelines recommend employing an inventory of symptoms, diagnostic classification, performance problems and workplace factors. All guidelines recommend specific return-to-work interventions, and most agreed on psychological treatment and communication between involved stakeholders. DISCUSSION: Practice guidelines to address work disability due to mental disorders and stress-related symptoms are available in various countries around the world, however, these guidelines are difficult to find. To promote sharing, national guidelines should be accessible via established international databases. The quality of the guideline's developmental process varied considerably. To increase quality and applicability, guideline developers should adopt a common structure for the development and reporting of their guidelines, for example Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. Owing to differences in social systems, developers can learn from each other through reviews of this kind. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Mental Health < General expertise; Practice guidelines; Return-to-work; Systematic review
Authors: Margot C W Joosen; Karlijn M van Beurden; Berend Terluin; Jaap van Weeghel; Evelien P M Brouwers; Jac J L van der Klink Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Sophie M Bruinsma; Chris H Bangma; Peter R Carroll; Michael S Leapman; Antti Rannikko; Neophytos Petrides; Mahesha Weerakoon; Leonard P Bokhorst; Monique J Roobol Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Marjolein Lugtenberg; Karlijn M van Beurden; Evelien P M Brouwers; Berend Terluin; Jaap van Weeghel; Jac J L van der Klink; Margot C W Joosen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-07-16 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Eva Rothermund; Martina Michaelis; Marc N Jarczok; Elisabeth M Balint; Rahna Lange; Stephan Zipfel; Harald Gündel; Monika A Rieger; Florian Junne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 3.390