Group-level workplace interventions to improve mental health in low control, high-demand office-based jobs. A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Workplace psychosocial risk factors, including low autonomy and high demands, have negative consequences for employee mental health and wellbeing. There is a need to support employees experiencing mental health and well-being problems in these jobs. This scoping review aims to describe group-level workplace interventions and their approaches to improving the mental health and well-being of employees in office-based, low autonomy, and high demands jobs.

METHODS

Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a search was conducted across 4 databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA). We explored studies presenting group-level interventions, mode of implementation, facilitators and barriers, and intervention effectiveness. The search was restricted to include office-based, low autonomy, and high-demands jobs. Primary outcome of interest was mental health and secondary outcomes were work-related and other well-being outcomes.

RESULTS

Group-level workplace interventions include an array of organizational, relational, and individual components. Almost all included a training session or workshop for intervention delivery. Several had manuals but theories of change were rare. Most workplace interventions did not use participatory approaches to involve employees in intervention development, implementation and evaluation, and challenges and facilitators were not commonly reported. Key facilitators were shorter intervention duration, flexible delivery modes, and formalized processes (e.g. manuals). A key barrier was the changeable nature of workplace environments. All studies employing behavioural interventions reported significant improvements in mental health outcomes, while no clear pattern of effectiveness was observed for other outcomes or types of interventions employed.

CONCLUSIONS

Group-based interventions in low-autonomy office settings can be effective but few studies used participatory approaches or conducted process evaluations limiting our knowledge of the determinants for successful group-based workplace interventions. Involving stakeholders in intervention development, implementation, and evaluation is recommended and can be beneficial for better articulation of the acceptability and barriers and facilitators for delivery and engagement.

Buprenorphine/Naloxone Maintenance Therapy: an Observational Retrospective Report on the Effect of Dose on 18 months Retention in an Office-Based Treatment Program

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Buprenorphine has been available with few reports of the dose range necessary to adequately maintain patients. We report on the effect of 8 mg/d versus 16 mg/d of buprenorphine on long-term patient retention in office-based opioid maintenance (OBOMT).

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Case series, at an urban hospital-based primary care clinic providing OBOMT to 157 opiate-dependent, low socioeconomic status, uninsured, nonhomeless patients.

INTERVENTION

The OBOMT program operated by a comprehensive sobriety treatment program experienced State funding cuts. Thus, after 2 years, the program was required by the State funder to decrease the buprenorphine maintenance dose from 16 to 8 mg/d for all new admissions. We report on patient retention before and after dose reduction.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes of this study were to measure and compare patient retention in the 2 cohorts at each point of treatment transition over the 18 months following OBOMT initiation.

RESULTS

No significant differences in patient retention were observed between the 16 and 8 mg/d patient cohorts. Lower dose buprenorphine maintenance (8 mg/d) in uninsured patients enrolled in publicly funded long-term OBOMT combined with comprehensive sobriety counseling was as effective as higher dose therapy (16 mg/d) in promoting patient retention throughout the study period. This lower dose resulted in a substantial saving to the public funding agency.

CONCLUSIONS

In an observational retrospective report, retention in treatment of opiate-addicted patients was the same at 8 and 16 mg/d buprenorphine doses after 18 months. These data have implications for public and managed care funding of OBOMT, for the general prescribing of buprenorphine in outpatient care, and may be instructive in the ongoing debate about the relationship between buprenorphine dose.

Office spirometry correlates with laboratory spirometry in patients with symptomatic asthma and COPD

OBJECTIVES

Spirometry remains underutilized in the evaluation of obstructive lung disease. While office spirometry (OS) has been compared to formal laboratory-based spirometry (LS) in healthy subjects, the correlation has never been formally assessed in patients with symptomatic obstructive lung disease. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation in this population.

METHODS

We used a retrospective study design to analyze spirometry data from patients that underwent both OS and LS. Two flow sensing office (portable) spirometers were used and compared with laboratory-based (body plethymosgraph) spirometer. Accuracy and reliability were assessed using Bland Altman analysis.

RESULTS

Among 185 patients with symptomatic obstructive lung disease, 129 had undergone both OS and LS. Of these, 107 patients had both tests performed less than 90 days apart and were included in final analyses. Mean age was 54 years with mean FEV1 of 1.97 L (65% predicted). Ninety-two patients had airflow obstruction, as determined by a FEV1/FVC ratio of <70%. We found significant correlation in the values between OS and LS for both FEV1 and FVC (r = 0.937 and 0.90, respectively, P < 0.001). Eighty-seven percent of patients had a concordant spirometry in terms of airflow obstruction. Correlation was independent of the office spirometer (and hence the Flow-sensing mechanism) used.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with known asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), OS is accurate and reliable when compared to formal laboratory-based spirometry. Routine use of OS should be encouraged to improve spirometry utilization and healthcare outcomes in patients with Asthma and COPD.