| Literature DB >> 35564466 |
Sophia Bouzikos1, Ali Afsharian1, Maureen Dollard1, Oliver Brecht2.
Abstract
Organisations often engage Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) to assist employees experiencing psychological distress, yet EAPs primarily focus on individual remedies rather than addressing the context of the problem (e.g., the corporate climate) which may render them limited in effectiveness. We investigated the effectiveness of EAPs and the role of organisation psychosocial safety climate (PSC) (the corporate climate for worker psychological health and safety) and client satisfaction in reducing client psychological distress. Client participants (Time 1, n = 100, Time 2, n = 28, Matched n = 25) from Australia and New Zealand entering an EAP took part in two online surveys, pre- and post-EAP, around five weeks apart. Multilevel analysis showed a significant reduction in psychological distress due to the EAP (individual effect) but particularly at high levels of PSC (organisational effect). Thus, EAPs could engender a more significant impact by also assisting organisations to improve their PSC (i.e., through implementation of policies, practices and procedures for worker psychological health and safety), in combination with individual interventions.Entities:
Keywords: client satisfaction; employee assistance programs; psychological distress; psychosocial safety climate; work stress
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564466 PMCID: PMC9099973 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095067
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Descriptive Statistics; Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations.
|
|
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. EAP Completed | 1.88 | 0.78 | 25 | 1 | ||||
| 2. GHQ (T1) | 22.40 | 6.80 | 25 | −0.08 | 1 | |||
| 3. GHQ (T2) | 12.21 | 7.22 | 25 | 0.45 * | 0.02 | 1 | ||
| 4. PSC (T1) | 34.99 | 12.45 | 25 | −0.39 | −0.17 | −0.53 ** | 1 | |
| 5. PSC (T2) | 37.56 | 1.79 | 25 | 0.09 | 0.04 | −0.14 | 0.22 | 1 |
| 6. Satisfaction (T2) | 16.96 | 1.88 | 25 | 0.31 | −0.03 | −0.18 | 0.16 | 0.27 |
Note. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. (two-tailed). Matched sample. EAP = Employee Assistance Program, GHQ = General Health Questionnaire, PSC = Psychosocial Safety Climate, T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2.
Final estimation of fixed effect; Predicting Change in Psychological Distress.
| Fixed Effect | Coefficient |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| For Intercept 1 | |||||
| Intercept | 32.59 | 2.75 | 11.87 | 23 | <0.001 |
| PSC (T1) | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.67 | 23 | 0.51 |
| For TIME slope | |||||
| Intercept 2 | −10.19 | 1.66 | −6.13 | 23 | <0.001 |
| PSC (T1) | −0.21 | 0.10 | −2.17 | 23 | 0.041 |
Note. SE = Standard Error, df = Degrees of freedom, p = Probability, PSC = Psychosocial Safety climate, T1 = Time One.
Figure 1PSC × Time interaction to predict GHQ.
Final estimation of fixed effects; Predicting Change in Satisfaction.
| Fixed Effect | Coefficient |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| For Intercept 1 | |||||
| Intercept 2 | 32.60 | 3.41 | 9.55 | 22 | <0.001 |
| Satisfaction (T2) | 0.44 | 1.32 | 0.33 | 22 | 0.74 |
| For TIME slope | |||||
| Intercept 2 | −9.86 | 2.05 | −4.81 | 22 | <0.001 |
| Satisfaction (T2) | −0.56 | 0.83 | −0.67 | 22 | 0.507 |
Note. SE = Standard Error, df = Degrees of freedom, p = Probability, T2 = Time Two.