Decision (not) to disclose mental health conditions or substance abuse in the work environment: a multiperspective focus group study within the military

Dutch workers' attitudes towards having a coworker with mental health issues or illness: a latent class analysis

Introduction

Workplace mental health stigma is a major problem as it can lead to adverse occupational outcomes and reduced well-being. Although workplace climate is largely determined by managers and co-workers, the role of co-workers in workplace stigma is understudied. Therefore, the aims are: (1) to examine knowledge and attitudes towards having a coworker with Mental Health Issues or Illness (MHI), especially concerning the desire for social distance, (2) to identify distinct subgroups of workers based on their potential concerns towards having a coworker with MHI, and (3) to characterize these subgroups in terms of knowledge, attitudes, and background characteristics.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among a nationally representative internet panel of 1,224 Dutch workers who had paid jobs and did not hold management positions. Descriptive statistics and a three-step approach Latent Class Analysis (LCA) were used to address the research aims.

Results

Concerning the desire for social distance, 41.9% of Dutch workers indicated they did not want to have a close colleague with MHI, and 64.1% did not want to work for a higher-ranking manager who had MHI. In contrast however, most workers did not have negative experiences with interacting with coworkers with MHI (92.6%). Next, five distinct subgroups (SG) of workers were identified: two subgroups with few concerns towards having a coworker with MHI (SG1 and SG2; 51.8% of the respondents), one subgroup with average concerns (SG3; 22.7% of the respondents), and two subgroups with more concerns (SG4 and SG5; 25.6% of the respondents). Four out of five subgroups showed a high tendency towards the desire for social distance. Nevertheless, even in the subgroups with more concerns, (almost) half of the respondents were willing to learn more about how to best deal with coworkers with MHI. No significant differences were found between the subgroups on background characteristics.

Discussion

The high tendency to the desire for social distance seems to contrast with the low number of respondents who personally had negative experiences with workers with MHI in the workplace. This suggests that the tendency to socially exclude this group was not based on their own experience. The finding that a large group of respondents indicated to want to learn more about how to deal with a co-worker with MHI is promising. Destigmatizing interventions in the workplace are needed in order to create more inclusive workplaces to improve sustained employment of people with MHI. These interventions should focus on increasing the knowledge of workers about how to best communicate and deal with coworkers with MHI, they do not need to differentiate in background variables of workers.

Workplace Mental Health Disclosure, Sustainable Employability and Well-Being at Work: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Military Personnel with Mental Illness

Purpose Disclosure of mental illness to a supervisor can have positive (e.g. supervisor support) and negative consequences (e.g. stigma). However, research on the association between disclosure and sustainable employability and well-being at work is scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the disclosure decision (yes/no), experiences with the decision (positive/negative) and sustainable employment and well-being at work among military personnel with mental illness (N = 323). Methods A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted. Descriptive and regression (linear and ordinal) analyses were performed. Comparisons were made between those with positive and negative disclosure experiences. Results Disclosure decision (yes/no) was not significantly associated with any of the measures of sustainable employability and well-being at work. However, positive disclosure experiences were significantly associated with higher scores on almost all measures of sustainable employability and well-being at work. Those with negative disclosure experiences reported significantly more shame (M_pos = 2.42, M_neg = 2.78, p < .05) and discrimination (M_pos = 1.70, M_neg = 2.84, p < .001). Those with a positive disclosure experience, reported significantly more supervisor support (M_pos = 3.20, M_neg = 1.94, p < .001). Conclusion We did not find evidence that the disclosure decision itself is related to measures of sustainable employment and well-being at work. In contrast, how participants had experienced their (non-)disclosure decision was significantly related to almost all measures. This emphasizes the importance of the work environments reactions to disclosure and mental illness in the workplace. Future research and interventions should focus on increasing the likelihood of positive disclosure experiences through creating a more inclusive work environment, with more supervisor support and less stigma.

Disclosure of Mental Health Problems or Suicidality at Work: A Systematic Review

Many adults experience mental health problems or suicidality. Mental health and suicidality are associated with stigma and discrimination. Little is known about disclosure of mental health or suicidality problems in workplaces and the role of stigma and discrimination in affecting disclosure. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. Searches for peer-reviewed articles in MedLINE, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO identified 26 studies, including sixteen qualitative, seven quantitative and three mixed-methods studies. No studies were excluded based on quality assessment. All studies reported on mental health disclosure; none reported on disclosure of suicidal thoughts or behaviours. The narrative synthesis identified four overarching themes relating to disclosure of mental health problems in workplaces. Themes included beliefs about stigma and discrimination, workplace factors (including supports and accommodation), identity factors (including professional and personal identity, gender and intersectionality) and factors relating to the disclosure process (including timing and recipients), with all influencing disclosure decision making. Significantly, this review found that there is a gap in the existing literature relating to suicidality disclosure in workplaces, with none of the included studies investigating disclosure of suicidal thoughts and behaviours.

Mental health issues and illness and substance use disorder (non-)disclosure to a supervisor: a cross-sectional study on beliefs, attitudes and needs of military personnel

OBJECTIVES

Research suggests that military personnel frequently delay disclosing mental health issues and illness (MHI), including substance use disorder, to supervisors. This delay causes missed opportunities for support and workplace accommodations which may help to avoid adverse occupational outcomes. The current study aims to examine disclosure-related beliefs, attitudes and needs, to create a better understanding of personnel's disclosure decision making.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional questionnaire study among military personnel with and without MHI. Beliefs, attitudes and needs regarding the (non-)disclosure decision to a supervisor were examined, including factors associated with (non-)disclosure intentions and decisions. Descriptive and regression (logistic and ordinal) analyses were performed.

SETTING

The study took place within the Dutch military.

PARTICIPANTS

Military personnel with MHI (n=324) and without MHI (n=554) were participated in this study.

OUTCOME MEASURE

(Non-)disclosure intentions and decisions.

RESULTS

Common beliefs and attitudes pro non-disclosure were the preference to solve one's own problems (68.3%), the preference for privacy (58.9%) and a variety of stigma-related concerns. Common beliefs and attitudes pro disclosure were that personnel wanted to be their true authentic selves (93.3%) and the desire to act responsibly towards work colleagues (84.5%). The most reported need for future disclosure (96.8%) was having a supervisor who shows an understanding for MHI. The following factors were associated both with non-disclosure intentions and decisions: higher preference for privacy (OR (95% CI))=(1.99 (1.50 to 2.65)_intention, 2.05 (1.12 to 3.76)_decision) and self-management (OR (95% CI))=(1.64 (1.20 to 2.23)_intention, 1.79 (1.00 to 3.20)_decision), higher stigma-related concerns (OR (95% CI))=(1.76 (1.12 to 2.77)_intention, 2.21 (1.02 to 4.79)_decision) and lower quality of supervisor-employee relationship (OR (95% CI))=(0.25 (0.15 to 0.42)_intention, 0.47 (0.25 to 0.87)_decision).

CONCLUSION

To facilitate (early-)disclosure to a supervisor, creating opportunities for workplace support, interventions should focus on decreasing stigma and discrimination and align with personnels' preference for self-management. Furthermore, training is needed for supervisors on how to recognise, and effectively communicate with, personnel with MHI. Focus should also be on improving supervisor-employee relationships.

Expectations of Mental Illness Disclosure Outcomes in the Work Context: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Dutch Workers

Purpose The decision whether to disclose mental illness at work can have important positive and negative consequences for sustainable employment and well-being. The aim of the study is (1) to examine workers' expectations of outcomes of mental illness disclosure in the workplace and to evaluate their expectations regarding which factors are of influence on these outcomes, (2) to identify distinct subgroups of workers, and (3) to characterize these subgroups in terms of personal, sociodemographic, and work-related characteristics. Methods In this cross-sectional survey study, a sample of 1224 Dutch workers was used. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was used to identify classes of workers based on expected workplace mental illness outcomes. A three-step approach LCA was chosen to investigate whether the classes differed in characteristics. Results The majority of workers expected predominantly positive outcomes of workplace mental illness disclosure (e.g., being able to be one's authentic self; 82.4%), even though they simultaneously expected disclosure to lead to advancement-related discrimination (e.g., lower chances of contract renewal; or getting a promotion; 68.4% and 57%, respectively). Six distinct subgroups of workers were identified based on expected workplace mental illness disclosure outcomes: two positive classes (50.1%), two negative classes (33.3%), and two classes who indicated not to know what the outcomes would be (16.7%). Significant differences between the classes were found on personal experience, work-related association with mental illness, gender, educational level, and workplace atmosphere. Conclusion The disclosure process is complex, as most workers were optimistic (i.e., expected generally positive outcomes) whilst simultaneously expecting workplace discrimination. Subgroup differences in expectations regarding workplace mental illness disclosure outcomes were found.