Web-based decision aid tool for disclosure of a mental health condition in the workplace: a randomised controlled trial

Does the decision to disclose non-suicidal self-injury align with decision-making frameworks of personal information disclosure? A directed content analysis

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is the deliberate damage caused to one's own body tissue, without the intent to die. Voluntary disclosure of one's NSSI can catalyze help-seeking and provision of support, although what informs the decision to disclose NSSI is not yet well understood. There is currently no existing framework specific to the process of NSSI disclosure, and the aim of this study was to assess the fit between factors involved in the decision to disclose NSSI and two broader frameworks of disclosure: the Disclosure Decision-Making and Disclosure Processes models. A directed content analysis was used to code interview transcripts from 15 participants, all of whom were university students aged between 18 and 25 (M = 20.33, SD = 1.88), with 11 identifying as female. All participants had lived experience of NSSI which they had previously disclosed to at least one other person. All codes within the coding matrix, which were informed by the disclosure models, were identified as being present in the data. Of the 229 units of data, 95.63% were captured in the existing frameworks with only 10 instances being unique to NSSI disclosure. Though factors that inform the decision to disclose NSSI largely align with the aforementioned models of disclosure, there are aspects of disclosure decision-making that may be specific to NSSI.

"I Wish This Tool Was Available to Me Sooner": Piloting a Workplace Autism Disclosure Decision-Aid Tool for Autistic Youth and Young Adults

Background

For autistic youth and young adults, deciding whether to disclose their autism at work may be complex since they are newly entering the workforce and are at an impressionable developmental period. Decision-aid tools can help someone make a choice regarding a topic/situation. We developed a workplace autism disclosure decision-aid tool called DISCLOSURE (Do I Start the Conversation and Let On, Speak Up, and REveal?) to support autistic youth and young adults navigate disclosure decision-making. In this study, we aimed to assess the DISCLOSURE tool's (1) impact on decision-making and self-determination capabilities and (2) usability, feasibility, and acceptability.

Methods

This was a single-arm pre-post pilot study. The DISCLOSURE tool comprises three interactive PDF documents and videos. Thirty participants (mean age of 23.5 years) completed online surveys before and after interacting with the DISCLOSURE tool. We used descriptive statistics for usability, feasibility, and acceptability. We calculated the Wilcoxon signed rank and paired t-tests to determine pre-post changes in decision-making and self-determination capabilities (Decisional Conflict Scale-Low Literacy Version [DCS-LL]; adapted Arc's Self-Determination Scale). We analyzed open-ended data using conventional (inductive) content analysis.

Results

There were significant decreases in DCS-LL total and subscale scores (p < 0.0001) and a significant increase in Arc's total score (p = 0.01), suggesting important improvements. There were no significant increases for Arc's psychological empowerment and self-realization subscales (p = 0.05; p = 0.09). Median scores (4.0/5.0) indicate that participants agreed that the DISCLOSURE tool is acceptable, feasible, and meets the usability criteria. We developed four categories to describe the open-ended data: (1) disclosure capabilities, (2) the role of others, (3) positive tool impact and feedback, and (4) minimal tool impact and constructive feedback.

Discussion

Findings are suggestive of the DISCLOSURE tool's ability to support workplace autism disclosure decision-making. Future studies should ascertain the DISCLOSURE tool's effectiveness, explore others' feedback (e.g., employers), and how to incorporate the tool into relevant employment and vocational programs.

Improving Work Participation Outcomes Among Unemployed People with Mental Health Issues/Mental Illness: Feasibility of a Stigma Awareness Intervention

PURPOSE

As stigma is a barrier to work participation of unemployed people with mental health issues/mental illness (MHI), a stigma awareness intervention can be helpful to make informed decisions about disclosing MHI. The aim of this process evaluation was to investigate the feasibility of a stigma awareness intervention, to explore experiences of clients and their employment specialists; and to give recommendations for further implementation.

METHODS

The intervention consisted of a stigma awareness training for employment specialists and a decision aid tool for their clients with (a history of) MHI. For the process evaluation, six process components of the Linnan & Stecklar framework were examined: recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity and context. Using a mixed-methods design, quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The six components showed the intervention was largely implemented as planned. Questionnaire data showed that 94% of the clients found the tool useful and 87% would recommend it to others. In addition, more than half (54%) indicated the tool had been helpful in their disclosure decision. Qualitative data showed that participants were mainly positive about the intervention. Nevertheless, only a minority of clients and employment specialists had actually discussed the tool together. According to both, the intervention had increased their awareness of workplace stigma and the disclosure dilemma.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a stigma awareness intervention was feasible and did increase stigma awareness. Experiences with the intervention were mainly positive. When implementing the tool, it is recommended to embed it in the vocational rehabilitation system, so that discussing the disclosure dilemma becomes a routine.

TRAIL REGISTER

The study was retrospectively registered at the Dutch Trial Register (TRN: NL7798, date: 04-06-2019).

Effectiveness of a Stigma Awareness Intervention on Reemployment of People with Mental Health Issues/Mental Illness: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

A barrier for reemployment of people with mental health issues/mental illness (MHI) is workplace stigma and discrimination. In this RCT the effectiveness of a stigma-awareness intervention addressing finding work, retaining work and decisional stress were evaluated.

METHODS

A cluster RCT was conducted in 8 Dutch municipal practices. Randomisation took place at practice level. Participants were unemployed people with MHI, receiving social benefits. The intervention consisted of a decision aid for workplace disclosure for participants and a 2 × 3 h stigma-awareness training for their employment specialists. Primary outcomes were measured at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-months. Multilevel analyses, containing random intercepts of participants nested in organizations, were conducted to analyse the effects of the intervention.

RESULTS

Participants (N = 153) were randomized to an experimental (n = 76) or control group (n = 77). At six months, significantly more participants of the experimental group (51%) had found work compared to the control group (26%). At twelve months, significantly more participants of the experimental group (49%) had retained work compared to the control group (23%). Intention-to-treat analyses showed that randomization to the experimental group was associated with finding (OR(95%CI) = 7.78(1.33-45.53), p = 0.02) and retaining (OR(95%CI) = 12.15(2.81-52.63), p < 0.01) work more often at twelve months. Analyses showed that the experimental and control group did not differ in decisional stress.

CONCLUSIONS

Our stigma awareness intervention was effective for finding and retaining work. As the percentage of people who found and retained work almost doubled, this suggests that on a societal level, a vast number of unemployed people could be reemployed with a relatively simple intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered at the Dutch Trial Register (TRN: NL7798, date: 04-06-2019).

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

A Codeveloped Web-Based Disability Disclosure Toolkit for Youth With Disabilities: Mixed Methods Pilot Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Youth and young adults with disabilities experience many barriers in securing employment such as discrimination, inaccessible environments, and lack of support. Youth often need to decide whether and how they should disclose their need for accommodations to employers, which can help them to do their best at work. However, few evidence-based toolkits focusing on disability disclosure exist for youth with various types of disabilities. Supporting youth to develop self-advocacy skills is salient because they are an underrepresented and marginalized group in the labor market.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to conduct a pilot evaluation of a web-based toolkit to enhance disability disclosure for youth and young adults helping to advocate for their needs and request workplace accommodations.

METHODS

We conducted 2 in-person focus groups to codevelop a web-based disability disclosure toolkit, which was followed by a pilot evaluation with a pre-post survey. Primary outcomes focused on the relevance of the toolkit content, preliminary perceived impact on knowledge and confidence, and open-ended feedback on the usefulness of the toolkit. Secondary outcomes focused on effectiveness (ie, measures of self-determination).

RESULTS

A total of 14 youths with various types of disabilities took part in the study (aged 20-25 years; n=11, 78% female) including 3 who participated in the codevelopment focus group sessions and 11 youths who participated in the surveys. Our findings involved three main themes in the codevelopment sessions that included (1) disability disclosure and workplace accommodation experiences (ie, knowing when, whether, and how to disclose their disability and request workplace accommodations), (2) usefulness of the tool (ie, relatable content, format and design, and suggestions for further development), and (3) perceived impact of the toolkit (ie, navigating disclosure decisions and how to approach employers and develop other relevant employment skills). The survey findings showed that the majority of participants (10/11, 91%) reported that the toolkit increased or changed their knowledge or understanding of disability disclosure. Most participants (8/11, 73%) reported that the toolkit helped to increase their perceived confidence in their daily activities. The majority of participants (8/11, 73%) agreed or strongly agreed that the toolkit was easy to understand and comprehensive. Regarding the preliminary impact of the toolkit, participants did not demonstrate any significant improvements in self-determination (all P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings emphasize the importance of codeveloping a disability disclosure toolkit with youth to enhance its relevance for their needs. Our toolkit indicates preliminary potential as an educational resource for youth and young adults with disabilities as they search for and secure employment. Further research is needed to assess the impact of the tool with larger samples to understand the impact of workplace disability disclosure decisions for youth with disabilities.

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.

A Sensibility Assessment of the Job Demands and Accommodation Planning Tool (JDAPT): A Tool to Help Workers with an Episodic Disability Plan Workplace Support

Purpose Sensibility refers to a tool's comprehensiveness, understandability, relevance, feasibility, and length. It is used in the early development phase to begin assessing a new tool or intervention. This study examined the sensibility of the job demands and accommodation planning tool (JDAPT). The JDAPT identifies job demands related to physical, cognitive, interpersonal, and working conditions to better target strategies for workplace supports and accommodations aimed at assisting individuals with chronic health conditions. Methods Workers with a chronic health condition and workplace representatives were recruited from health charities, workplaces, and newsletters using convenience sampling. Cognitive interviews assessed the JDAPT's sensibility. A 70% endorsement rate was the minimum level of acceptability for sensibility concepts. A short screening tool also was administered, and answers compared to the complete JDAPT. Results Participants were 46 workers and 23 organizational representatives (n = 69). Endorsements highly exceeded the 70% cut-off for understandability, relevance, and length. Congruence between screening questions and the complete JDAPT suggested both workers and organizational representatives overlooked job demands when completing the screener. Participants provided additional examples and three new items to improve comprehensiveness. The JDAPT was rated highly relevant and useful, although not always easy to complete for someone with an episodic condition. Conclusions This study highlights the need for tools that facilitate accommodations for workers with episodic disabilities and provides early evidence for the sensibility of the JDAPT.

Effectiveness of Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy for employees with depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives. The effectiveness of Internet interventions for employees with depressive disorder remains controversial. We summarized all available evidence exploring the role of Internet interventions in reducing employees' depressive symptoms. Methods. This study was a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis that included acceptability and preliminary feasibility studies. We excluded programme descriptions, discussion articles and study protocols. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science from database inception to May 2021 for articles published in English. We extracted data concerning demographics, intervention format, including Internet interventions, control group conditions and outcome measures. We used a random-effects model and calculated Hedges' g values for the scores of employees receiving Internet interventions versus control conditions. This systematic review is registered as INPLASY202160082. Results. Data from 19 studies were included. These 19 studies included 5898 participants (2813 participants received Internet interventions, 3085 participants were in control groups). Conclusions. The findings suggest that Internet interventions can be effective in improving depression in employees. However, more randomized controlled trials are needed to provide better evidence regarding Internet interventions for employees with depression, and robust studies are needed to observe the effectiveness of Internet interventions.

Disclosure dilemmas: how people with a mental health condition perceive and manage disclosure at work

PURPOSE

Little research has explored the process of disclosure decision-making from antecedents to outcomes. This paper presents a model of decision-making about disclosure of a mental health condition to the immediate supervisor in the workplace shortly after starting a new job.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive design was employed to explore participants' experiences of the disclosure decision-making process, the disclosure event itself (if applicable), and their perceptions of the impact of the decision on personal, interpersonal, and organizational outcomes. The transcripts were coded and analyzed using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight participants were purposively selected to represent different disclosure decisions, sex, diagnoses, and maintenance of employment. Analysis identified goals and conditions/context were important antecedents for the disclosure decision. All participants discussed concerns about prejudice and discrimination if they disclosed, and, for those who chose to disclose, high stress and anxiety were described during the disclosure event; however, supervisor reactions were generally described as positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of the disclosure strategy adopted, participants reported that their disclosure decision helped to support their self-acceptance and recovery. For those who disclosed, most perceived a positive response by their supervisor. However, the pervasive concerns of prejudice indicate there is still much work to be done.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONDecision-making about disclosure of a mental health condition to the immediate supervisor in the workplace is a complex process.Disclosure goals, the relationship with the supervisor and the workplace context are important antecedents to the disclosure decision.Careful consideration should be given to the planning of disclosure, particularly related to what information will be shared, how it will be shared, and an appropriate level of emotional content to enhance the likelihood of a positive response from the supervisor.Disclosure planning should take the supervisor's style and organizational norms into account.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Are Organizational EHealth Interventions Becoming More Effective at Addressing Employee Mental Health; A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

Background

Mental health conditions are considered the leading cause of disability, sickness absence, and long-term work incapacity. eHealth interventions provide employees with access to psychological assistance. There has been widespread implementation and provision of eHealth interventions in the workplace as an inexpensive and anonymous way of addressing common mental disorders.

Objective

This updated review aimed to synthesize the literature on the efficacy of eHealth interventions for anxiety, depression, and stress outcomes in employee samples in organizational settings and evaluate whether their effectiveness has improved over time.

Methods

Systematic searches of relevant articles published from 2004 to July 2020 of eHealth intervention trials (app- or web-based) focusing on the mental health of employees were conducted. The quality and bias of all studies were assessed. We extracted means and SDs from publications by comparing the differences in effect sizes (Hedge g) in standardized mental health outcomes. We meta-analyzed these data using a random-effects model.

Results

We identified a tripling of the body of evidence, with 75 trials available for meta-analysis from a combined sample of 14,747 articles. eHealth interventions showed small positive effects for anxiety (Hedges g=0.26, 95% CI 0.13-0.39; P<.001), depression (Hedges g=0.26, 95% CI 0.19-0.34; P<.001), and stress (Hedges g=0.25, 95% CI 0.17-0.34; P<.001) in employees’ after intervention, with similar effects seen at the medium-term follow-up. However, there was evidence of no increase in the effectiveness of these interventions over the past decade.

Conclusions

This review and meta-analysis confirmed that eHealth interventions have a small positive impact on reducing mental health symptoms in employees. Disappointingly, we found no evidence that, despite the advances in technology and the enormous resources in time, research, and finance devoted to this area for over a decade, better interventions are being produced. Hopefully, these small effect sizes do not represent optimum outcomes in organizational settings.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020185859; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=185859

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

OBJECTIVES

Many workers in high-risk occupations, such as soldiers, are exposed to stressors at work, increasing their risk of developing mental health conditions and substance abuse (MHC/SA). Disclosure can lead to both positive (eg, support) and negative (eg, discrimination) work outcomes, and therefore, both disclosure and non-disclosure can affect health, well-being and sustainable employment, making it a complex dilemma. The objective is to study barriers to and facilitators for disclosure in the military from multiple perspectives.

DESIGN

Qualitative focus groups with soldiers with and without MHC/SA and military mental health professionals. Sessions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was done using a general inductive approach.

SETTING

The study took place within the Dutch military.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 46 people participated in 8 homogeneous focus groups, including 3 perspectives: soldiers with MHC/SA (N=20), soldiers without MHC/SA (N=10) and military mental health professionals (N=16).

RESULTS

Five barriers for disclosure were identified (fear of career consequences, fear of social rejection, lack of leadership support, lack of skills to talk about MHC/SA, masculine workplace culture) and three facilitators (anticipated positive consequences of disclosure, leadership support, work-related MHC/SA). Views of the stakeholder groups were highly congruent.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost all barriers (and facilitators) were related to fear for stigma and discrimination. This was acknowledged by all three perspectives, suggesting that stigma and discrimination are considerable barriers to sustainable employment and well-being. Supervisor knowledge, attitudes and behaviour were critical for disclosure, and supervisors thus have a key role in improving health, well-being and sustainable employment for soldiers with MHC/SA. Furthermore, adjustments could be made by the military on a policy level, to take away some of the fears that soldiers have when disclosing MHC/SA.

Comparison of predicted psychological distress among workers between artificial intelligence and psychiatrists: a cross-sectional study in Tsukuba Science City, Japan

OBJECTIVES

Psychological distress is a worldwide problem and a serious problem that needs to be addressed in the field of occupational health. This study aimed to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict psychological distress among workers using sociodemographic, lifestyle and sleep factors, not subjective information such as mood and emotion, and to examine the performance of the AI models through a comparison with psychiatrists.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

We conducted a survey on psychological distress and living conditions among workers. An AI model for predicting psychological distress was created and then the results were compared in terms of accuracy with predictions made by psychiatrists.

PARTICIPANTS

An AI model of the neural network and six psychiatrists.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

The accuracies of the AI model and psychiatrists for predicting psychological distress.

METHODS

In total, data from 7251 workers were analysed to predict moderate and severe psychological distress. An AI model of the neural network was created and accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Six psychiatrists used the same data as the AI model to predict psychological distress and conduct a comparison with the AI model.

RESULTS

The accuracies of the AI model and psychiatrists for predicting moderate psychological distress were 65.2% and 64.4%, respectively, showing no significant difference. The accuracies of the AI model and psychiatrists for predicting severe psychological distress were 89.9% and 85.5%, respectively, indicating that the AI model had significantly higher accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

A machine learning model was successfully developed to screen workers with depressed mood. The explanatory variables used for the predictions did not directly ask about mood. Therefore, this newly developed model appears to be able to predict psychological distress among workers easily, regardless of their subjective views.

A multicentric study on stigma towards people with mental illness in health sciences students

BACKGROUND

There is evidence of negative attitudes among health professionals towards people with mental illness but there is also a knowledge gap on what training must be given to these health professionals during their education. The purpose of this study is to compare the attitudes of students of health sciences: nursing, medical, occupational therapy, and psychology.

METHODS

A comparative and cross-sectional study in which 927 final-year students from health sciences university programmes were evaluated using the Mental Illness: Clinicians' Attitudes (both MICA-2 and MICA-4) scale. The sample was taken in six universities from Chile and Spain.

RESULTS

We found consistent results indicating that stigma varies across university programmes. Medical and nursing students showed more negative attitudes than psychology and occupational therapy students in several stigma-related themes: recovery, dangerousness, uncomfortability, disclosure, and discriminatory behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study presents a relevant description of the attitudes of each university programme for education against stigma in the formative years. Results show that the biomedical understanding of mental disorders can have negative effects on attitudes, and that education based on the psychosocial model allows a more holistic view of the person over the diagnosis.

Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of web-based decision aids (WDAs) on cancer-related clinical care in terms of different decision categories and by different cancer types.

METHODS

Literature retrieval utilized highly inclusive algorithms searching randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library and manual searching of eligible studies from reference lists of relevant articles. Two researchers examined the articles selected separately and extracted the information about the studies (e.g., decision category, sample sizes, and outcome indicators) using a data-extracting form and performed risk of bias assessment of the included studies with Begg's test, Egger's test, and Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Meta-analysis of the pooled effects of WDAs on outcome indicators was performed via Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

A total of 24 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, involving 9846 participants. Overall meta-analysis revealed statistically significant effects on cancer decisional conflict, knowledge, and making informed choice with the overall effect sizes being -0.29 (standardized mean difference, SMD), 0.47 (SMD), and 1.92 (risk ratio, RR) respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed significant effects in indicators including decisional conflict, knowledge, satisfaction, participation in decision-making, and screening behavior, though some extent of heterogeneity and quality flaws existed among the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our research results showed evidence of WDA effects on certain outcome indicators of cancer decisions, these results should be interpreted with caution given the heterogeneity and quality flaws. It is still premature to conclude whether WDA was effective in optimizing cancer clinical decision-making, and more efforts are needed in this area.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020218991.

Comparing discrimination among people with schizophrenia, affective and anxiety disorders. A multilevel study in five European countries

BACKGROUND

Most research on mental illness stigma has involved people with psychosis; less information is available for people with affective and anxiety disorders. We aimed to compare experienced and anticipated discrimination among people with schizophrenia, and affective and anxiety disorders.

METHODS

People with schizophrenia (n=773), affective (n=1010) and anxiety disorders (n=372) were recruited during psychiatric admission across 5 EU countries. The Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC-12) was used. Multivariate mixed effect logistic regression models with a random effect for hospital and country were performed to explore patient characteristics associated with experienced and anticipated discrimination.

RESULTS

With anxiety disorders, there were more reports of experiences of discrimination in social life (35%), intimate relationships (23.5%), and physical healthcare (19%); in schizophrenia, in relations with neighbours (23.6%) and mental health staff (21.7%); and in affective disorders, in parental role (22.8%). In multivariate analyses, anxiety was associated with increased likelihood of experiencing discrimination in police interactions (OR=1.675; p=0.038) and physical healthcare (OR=1.816; p=0.003), and reduced likelihood when starting a family (OR=0.474; p=0.01) as compared with schizophrenia. Affective (OR=1.367; p=0.004) and anxiety disorders (OR=1.354; p=0.034) were associated with increased likelihood of concealing a diagnosis compared with schizophrenia.

LIMITATIONS

As patients with affective and anxiety disorders were recruited from hospital inpatient units, their experiences may not be representative of all people with these disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

In a sample of people receiving inpatient treatment, experienced and anticipated discrimination are perceived, at least in some life domains, as more of a burden for people with affective and anxiety disorders than those with schizophrenia.

Return to Work after Common Mental Disorders: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Expectations of the Involved Stakeholders

Common mental disorders (CMDs) are risk factors for long-term sickness absence and unemployment. Therefore, return-to-work (RTW) processes have been introduced to facilitate the return of employees. As the success of RTW processes is considered to be determined by the cooperativeness of the involved stakeholders, we aimed to investigate the views of those stakeholders to disclose potentially diverging expectations. Qualitative interviews were conducted (08/2018-04/2019) among five stakeholder groups: returnees with a diagnosed CMD who were eligible for a RTW process; health care professionals nominated by the returnees; supervisors, colleagues and occupational physicians (the latter three groups were not nominated by the returnees). In total, 24 returnees, 13 health care professionals, 13 occupational physicians, 9 supervisors and 9 colleagues were interviewed (68 interviews in total). Potentially diverging expectations of the stakeholders related to whether diagnoses need to be disclosed by returnees. Agreement existed in terms of the need for a trustful relationship between employees and occupational physicians to initiate a RTW process early. As the understanding of all stakeholders' viewpoints is one of the main factors promoting a successful RTW, we explored the expectations of those involved in the RTW process. One implication of our findings is to strengthen the role of occupational physicians, who could coordinate the return process.

What Could Influence Workers' Decisions to Disclose a Mental Illness at Work?

BACKGROUND

Stigma can be a barrier for workers experiencing a mental illness to access accommodations at work. However, work accommodations may be necessary to maintain a worker's ability to work. Therefore, it may be important to develop effective interventions to address workplace stigma.

OBJECTIVE

To determine (1) what proportion of workers would probably disclose their mental health issue to their manager, (2) what are the motivating factors for the decision of whether or not to disclose, and (3) what would potentially change the disclosure decision?

METHODS

A link to a Web-based questionnaire was sent to a nationally representative sample of 1671 Dutch adults over 18 years of age. The response rate was 74%. We focused on the 892 respondents who indicated they were either employed for pay or looking for employment, not in management positions, and never experienced a mental health issue. This group comprised 73% of the total sample. They were asked if they would disclose their mental health issue to their manager. For what reasons would they disclose/not disclose the issue? And, what could change their decision?

RESULTS

We found that almost 75% of workers would disclose to their managers. The perceived relationship with their managers and feelings of responsibility to their workplaces were important contributors to the decision. A large minority of workers would not tell, preferring to deal with their issues alone. In addition, a significant proportion of workers would choose not to disclose fearing negative consequences.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that the majority of these Dutch workers would disclose a mental health issue to their managers. The relationship with the manager plays a central role. The advice from a trusted individual and the experiences of colleagues are also significant factors in the disclosure decision.

Evaluation of an intervention to support decisions on disclosure in the employment setting (DECIDES): study protocol of a longitudinal cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background

Unemployment rates are higher among people with mental health issues/illness (MHI) than in the general working population, and many of them face the dilemma of whether or not to disclose their MHI when searching for employment. Disclosure can lead to rejection and discrimination, but alternatively can also have important advantages that may be necessary to retain employment. Whether disclosure decisions lead to sustainable employment depends on many factors, of which unemployed people themselves can only influence their decision to disclose or not and the way in which they communicate. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of an intervention to support unemployed people with MHI in their disclosure decision and communication.

Methods

This is a two-armed, clustered, randomized controlled trial with longitudinal design and randomization at organization level. An intervention will be examined, which consists of a disclosure decision aid tool (CORAL.NL) for unemployed people and workplace stigma-awareness training especially designed for employment specialists, which focusses on how to support unemployed people in their disclosure decisions. Participants in the intervention group are unemployed people who receive support from trained employment specialists from organizations allocated to the intervention group, and receive the CORAL.NL decision aid after baseline. The control group consists of unemployed people who receive support as usual from employment specialists from different organizations allocated to the control group. Primary outcomes are: cost-effectiveness of the intervention, e.g. healthcare costs, having employment, days until start of employment, independency of social security, having other forms of employment and decision making about disclosing MHI. Secondary outcomes are mental health and wellbeing, stigma and discrimination and work-related factors. Financial income data are collected via the registration systems of Dutch municipalities and Statistics Netherlands, and by questionnaires at baseline, and at 3, 6 and 12 months.

Discussion

If using a decision aid to decide about disclosure of MHI leads to people finding and retaining employment more often, this study will contribute to lowering healthcare and societal costs.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register: NL7798. Registered on 4 June 2019.