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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10926-022-10083-2

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

Barriers and facilitators for treatment-seeking for mental health conditions and substance misuse:Multi-perspective focus group study within the military

Background Globally, millions are exposed to stressors at work that increase their vulnerability to develop mental health conditions and substance misuse (such as soldiers, policemen, doctors). However, these types of professionals especially are expected to be strong and healthy, and this contrast may worsen their treatment gap. Although the treatment gap in the military has been studied before, perspectives of different stakeholders involved have largely been ignored, even though they play an important role. Aims To study the barriers and facilitators for treatment-seeking in the military, from three different perspectives. Method In total, 46 people participated, divided into eight homogeneous focus groups, including three perspectives: soldiers with mental health conditions and substance misuse (n = 20), soldiers without mental health conditions and substance misuse (n = 10) and mental health professionals (n = 16). Sessions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was done by applying a general inductive approach using ATLAS.ti-8.4.4 software. Results Five barriers for treatment-seeking were identified: fear of negative career consequences, fear of social rejection, confidentiality concerns, the ‘strong worker’ workplace culture and practical barriers. Three facilitators were identified: social support, accessibility and knowledge, and healthcare within the military. The views of the different stakeholder groups were highly congruent. Conclusions Barriers for treatment-seeking were mostly stigma related (fear of career consequences, fear of social rejection and the ‘strong worker’ workplace culture) and this was widely recognised by all groups. Social support from family, peers, supervisors and professionals were identified as important facilitators. A decrease in the treatment gap for mental health conditions and substance misuse is needed and these findings provide direction for future research and destigmatising interventions

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

Belemmerende en bevorderende factoren voor hulp zoeken bij psychische klachten of verslaving:Focusgroepstudie vanuit meerdere perspectieven binnen de Nederlandse krijgsmacht

Achtergrond Wereldwijd worden miljoenen mensen op het werk blootgesteld aan stressvolle factoren die de kans op het ontwikkelen van psychische klachten en/of verslaving (PK/V) verhogen (bijvoorbeeld militairen, politie, artsen). Maar het zijn ook juist deze beroepen waar men geacht wordt sterk en gezond te zijn. Hierdoor is het soms moeilijker om hulp te zoeken voor PK/V. Zo laat Engels onderzoek zien dat 60% van de militairen met PK/V hier geen professionele hulp voor zoekt. Eerder onderzoek naar hulp zoeken voor PK/V richtte zich met name op het perspectief van militairen met PK/V, waarbij andere belangrijke perspectieven niet meegenomen werden. Daarnaast is dit probleem niet eerder onderzocht binnen de Nederlandse krijgsmacht. Doel Het doel van de huidige studie was de belemmerende en bevorderende factoren voor het zoeken van hulp voor PK/V in kaart te brengen binnen de Nederlandse krijgsmacht vanuit verschillende perspectieven. Methode In totaal hebben 46 mensen deelgenomen aan de studie verdeeld over acht focusgroepen, met drie verschillende perspectieven: vier groepen militairen met PK/V (totaal 20 deelnemers), twee groepen militairen zonder PK/V (totaal 10 deelnemers) en twee groepen zorgprofessionals (totaal 16 deelnemers). De focusgroepen zijn opgenomen en letterlijk uitgeschreven. Vervolgens is met behulp van kwalitatieve data-analysesoftware contentanalyse uitgevoerd vanuit een inductieve benadering. Resultaten Er zijn vijf belemmerende factoren voor het zoeken van hulp gevonden: (1) angst voor negatieve carrièregevolgen, (2) angst voor sociale afwijzing, (3) zorgen rond de vertrouwelijkheid, (4) de militaire werkcultuur en (5) praktische barrières. Ook zijn drie bevorderende factoren gevonden: (1) sociale steun, (2) toegankelijkheid zorgverlening en kennis over waar hulp te verkrijgen en (3) militaire zorgverlening. Ondanks dat het onderzoek zich expliciet richtte op verschillende perspectieven kwamen de visies van de deelnemers sterk overeen. Conclusie De meeste belemmerende factoren voor het zoeken van hulp waren gerelateerd aan stigma (angst voor carrièregevolgen, sociale afwijzing en militaire werkcultuur) en dit werd benoemd door alle drie de verschillende perspectieven. Sociale steun vanuit het thuisfront, collega’s, leidinggevende en zorgprofessionals werd gezien als bevorderend voor het zoeken van hulp. De resultaten van de huidige studie geven richting voor zowel toekomstig (interventie)onderzoek als beleid, om ervoor te zorgen dat meer militairen hulp zoeken voor PK/V

Physicians' and nurses' opinions on selective decontamination of the digestive tract and selective oropharyngeal decontamination: a survey

Contains fulltext : 89741.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)INTRODUCTION: Use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care patients has been controversial for years. Through regular questionnaires we determined expectations concerning SDD (effectiveness) and experience with SDD and SOD (workload and patient friendliness), as perceived by nurses and physicians. METHODS: A survey was embedded in a group-randomized, controlled, cross-over multicenter study in the Netherlands in which, during three 6-month periods, SDD, SOD or standard care was used in random order. At the end of each study period, all nurses and physicians from participating intensive care units received study questionnaires. RESULTS: In all, 1024 (71%) of 1450 questionnaires were returned by nurses and 253 (82%) of 307 by physicians. Expectations that SDD improved patient outcome increased from 71% and 77% of respondents after the first two study periods to 82% at the end of the study (P = 0.004), with comparable trends among nurses and physicians. Nurses considered SDD to impose a higher workload (median 5.0, on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high)) than SOD (median 4.0) and standard care (median 2.0). Both SDD and SOD were considered less patient friendly than standard care (medians 4.0, 4.0 and 6.0, respectively). According to physicians, SDD had a higher workload (median 5.5) than SOD (median 5.0), which in turn was higher than standard care (median 2.5). Furthermore, physicians graded patient friendliness of standard care (median 8.0) higher than that of SDD and SOD (both median 6.0). CONCLUSIONS: Although perceived effectiveness of SDD increased as the trial proceeded, both among physicians and nurses, SOD and SDD were, as compared to standard care, considered to increase workload and to reduce patient friendliness. Therefore, education about the importance of oral care and on the effects of SDD and SOD on patient outcomes will be important when implementing these strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN35176830

MRSA carriage in healthcare personnel in contact with farm animals.

Item does not contain fulltextIn The Netherlands it has been shown that people in contact with pigs have a higher risk of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriage than the general population. Isolates of closely related spa types, corresponding to multilocus sequence type (MLST) ST398, were found in pig farmers, pig veterinarians and pigs. The objective of this study was to investigate whether contact with pigs and veal calves or other livestock is a risk factor for MRSA carriage in Dutch healthcare workers (HCWs). HCWs at four general hospitals and one university hospital were asked to fill in questionnaires covering contact with animals and to take MRSA cultures of their throat and nares. Cultures of HCWs in contact with livestock were processed with samples from HCWs with no contact with livestock as controls. Seventy-seven of 1721 HCWs (4.4%) reported direct or indirect contact with pigs and/or veal calves and 145 reported contact with other livestock animals. The MRSA carriage rate in the group in contact with pigs and veal calves was 1.7% and in the control group was 0.15%. No carriers were found among HCWs in contact with other livestock. An estimated 3% of hospital staff working in Dutch hospitals serving rural populations belong to a high risk group for MRSA carriage according to the Dutch guidelines. Although MRSA carriage in HCWs in contact with livestock is 10-fold higher than in other HCWs, the difference is not statistically significant

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 (Mpos = 2.42, Mneg = 2.78, p < .05) and discrimination (Mpos = 1.70, Mneg = 2.84, p < .001). Those with a positive disclosure experience, reported significantly more supervisor support (Mpos = 3.20, Mneg = 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