Stress Prevention@Work: a study protocol for the evaluation of a multifaceted integral stress prevention strategy to prevent employee stress in a healthcare organization: a cluster controlled trial

Rianne J A Hoek, Bo M Havermans, Irene L D Houtman, Evelien P M Brouwers, Yvonne F Heerkens, Moniek C Zijlstra-Vlasveld, Johannes R Anema, Allard J van der Beek, Cécile R L Boot, Rianne J A Hoek, Bo M Havermans, Irene L D Houtman, Evelien P M Brouwers, Yvonne F Heerkens, Moniek C Zijlstra-Vlasveld, Johannes R Anema, Allard J van der Beek, Cécile R L Boot

Abstract

Background: Adequate implementation of work-related stress management interventions can reduce or prevent work-related stress and sick leave in organizations. We developed a multifaceted integral stress-prevention strategy for organizations from several sectors that includes a digital platform and collaborative learning network. The digital platform contains a stepwise protocol to implement work-related stress-management interventions. It includes stress screeners, interventions and intervention providers to facilitate access to and the selection of matching work-related stress-management interventions. The collaborative learning network, including stakeholders from various organizations, plans meetings focussing on an exchange of experiences and good practices among organizations for the implementation of stress prevention measures. This paper describes the design of an integral stress-prevention strategy, Stress Prevention@Work, and the protocol for the evaluation of: 1) the effects of the strategy on perceived stress and work-related outcomes, and 2) the barriers and facilitators for implementation of the strategy.

Methods: The effectiveness of Stress Prevention@Work will be evaluated in a cluster controlled trial, in a large healthcare organization in the Netherlands, at six and 12 months. An independent researcher will match teams on working conditions and size and allocate the teams to the intervention or control group. Teams in the intervention group will be offered Stress Prevention@Work. For each intervention team, one employee is responsible for applying the strategy within his/her team using the digital platform and visiting the collaborative learning network. Using a waiting list design, the control group will be given access to the strategy after 12 months. The primary outcome is the employees' perceived stress measured by the stress subscale of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). Secondary outcome measures are job demands, job resources and the number of preventive stress measures implemented at the team level. Alongside the trial, a process evaluation, including barriers and facilitators of the implementation of Stress Prevention@Work, will be conducted in one healthcare organisation.

Discussion: If Stress Prevention@Work is found to be effective in one healthcare organisation, further implementation on a broader scale might lead to increased productivity and decreased stress and sick leave in other organizations. Results are expected in 2018.

Trial registration: NTR5527 . Registered 7 Dec 2015.

Keywords: Cluster controlled trial; E-health; Healthcare; Implementation strategy; Work-related stress; Work-related stress management interventions.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Participants were informed about the study before being approached for online participation. Consent for participation was given via an ‘opt-in’ construction.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Eurofound and EU-OSHA . Psychosocial risks in Europe: Prevalence and strategies for prevention. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union; 2014.
    1. Dewa C, Loong D, Bonato S, Hees H. Incidence rates of sickness absence related to mental disorders: a systematic literature review. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:205. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-205.
    1. Henderson M, Glozier N, Holland Elliott K. Long term sickness absence. BMJ. 2005;330:802–803. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7495.802.
    1. Douwes M, Van Genabeek J, Van den Bossche S. Arbobalans 2016. Kwaliteit van de arbeid, effecten en maatregelen in Nederland. Leiden: TNO. p. 2016.
    1. von Thiele SU, Hasson H. Employee self-rated productivity and objective organizational production levels: effects of worksite health interventions involving reduced work hours and physical exercise. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53:838–844. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31822589c2.
    1. Mills PR, Kessler RC, Cooper J, Sullivan S. Impact of a health promotion program on employee health risks and work productivity. Am J Health Promot. 2007;22:45–53. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-22.1.45.
    1. Landstad BJ, Ekholm J, Broman L, Schuldt K. Working environmental conditions as experienced by women working despite pain. Work. 2000;15:141–152.
    1. Richardson KM, Rothstein HR. Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs: a meta-analysis. J Occup Health Psychol. 2008;13:69–93. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.69.
    1. Kuoppala J, Lamminpaa A, Liira J, Vainio H. Leadership, job well-being, and health effects--a systematic review and a meta-analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2008;50:904–915. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e31817e918d.
    1. Ruotsalainen J, Serra C, Marine A, Verbeek J. Systematic review of interventions for reducing occupational stress in health care workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2008;34:169–178. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1240.
    1. Ebert DD, Heber E, Berking M, Riper H, Cuijpers P, Funk B, Lehr D. Self-guided internet-based and mobile-based stress management for employees: results of a randomised controlled trial. Occup Environ Med. 2016;73:315–323. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2015-103269.
    1. Westgaard RH, Winkel J. Occupational musculoskeletal and mental health: Significance of rationalization and opportunities to create sustainable production systems - A systematic review. Appl Ergon. 2011;42:261–296. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.07.002.
    1. González ER, Cockburn W, Irastorza X: European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks Managing Safety and Health at Work. Bilbao: European Union; European Agency for Safety and Health at Work; 2010. .
    1. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PA, Rubin HR. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282:1458–1465. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458.
    1. RPTM G, Wensing M. Implementatie: Effectieve verbetering van de patiëntenzorg. Maarsen: Elsevier gezondheidszorg; 2011.
    1. Kompier MAJ, Marcelissen FHG. Handboek werkstress: systematische aanpak voor de bedrijfspraktijk. Amsterdam: Nederlands Instituut voor Arbeidsomstandigheden (NIA); 1990.
    1. MAJ K. Aan de slag!: tien praktijkvoorbeelden van succesvol verzuimmanagement. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom BedrijfsInformatie; 2006.
    1. Leka S, Jain A, Cox T, Kortum E. The development of the European framework for psychosocial risk management: PRIMA-EF. J Occup Health. 2011;53:137–143. doi: 10.1539/joh.O10010.
    1. Houtman I, Kok L, van der Klauw M, Lammers M, Jansen Y, van Ginkel W. Waarom werkgevers bewezen effectieve maatregelen niet nemen: een kwalitatief onderzoek. Hoofddorp: TNO. 2012.
    1. Nielsen K, Abildgaard JS. Organizational interventions: A research-based framework for the evaluation of both process and effects. Work Stress. 2013;27:278–297. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2013.812358.
    1. Steckler AB, Linnan L, Israel BA. Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. 1. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 2002.
    1. van der Klink JJ, Blonk RW, Schene AH, van Dijk FJ. The benefits of interventions for work-related stress. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:270–276. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.91.2.270.
    1. Gespreksleidraad Werkstress (Conversation guideline work-related stress). []. Accessed 1 Jan 2014.
    1. Bolier L, Haverman M, Kramer J, Westerhof GJ, Riper H, Walburg JA, Boon B, Bohlmeijer E. An Internet-based intervention to promote mental fitness for mildly depressed adults: randomized controlled trial. Med Internet Res. 2013;15:9. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1715.
    1. De Beurs E, Van Dyck R, Marquenie LA, Lange A, Blonk RWB. De DASS: een vragenlijst voor het meten van depressie, angst en stress. Gedragstherapie. 2001;34:35–53.
    1. Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998;3:322–355. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.322.
    1. Hall GB, Dollard MF, Coward J. Psychosocial Safety Climate: Development of the PSC-12. Int J Stress Manag. 2010;17:353–383. doi: 10.1037/a0021320.
    1. Bouwmans C, De Jong K, Timman R, Zijlstra-Vlasveld M, Van der Feltz-Cornelis C, Tan Swan S, et al. Feasibility, reliability and validity of a questionnaire on healthcare consumption and productivity loss in patients with a psychiatric disorder (TiC-P) BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:217. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-217.
    1. Sinclair SJ, Siefert CJ, Slavin-Mulford JM, Stein MB, Renna M, Blais MA. Psychometric evaluation and normative data for the depression, anxiety, and stress scales-21 (DASS-21) in a nonclinical sample of U.S. adults. Eval Health Prof. 2012;35:259–279. doi: 10.1177/0163278711424282.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren