Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29189895›Full record

ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2018

Acceptance and barriers to access of occupational e-mental health: cross-sectional findings from a health-risk population of employees.

Severin Hennemann, Michael Witthöft, Matthias Bethge, Katja Spanier, Manfred E Beutel, Rüdiger Zwerenz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Severin HennemannDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Experimental Psychopathology, Institute of Psychology, University of Mainz, Wallstraße 3, 55122, Mainz, Germany. s.hennemann@uni-mainz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8780-9985
Michael WitthöftDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Experimental Psychopathology, Institute of Psychology, University of Mainz, Wallstraße 3, 55122, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4928-4222
Matthias BethgeInstitute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6417-7812
Katja SpanierInstitute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562, Lübeck, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3184-4930
Manfred E BeutelDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Gutenberg University Mainz, Untere Zahlbacher Str. 8, 55131, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1743-0042
Rüdiger ZwerenzDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Gutenberg University Mainz, Untere Zahlbacher Str. 8, 55131, Mainz, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1491-0905
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOccupational e-mental-health (OEMH) may extend existing instruments for preservation or restoration of health and work ability. As a key precondition to efficient implementation, this study examined acceptance and person-centered barriers to potential uptake of OEMH for work-related distress in employees with an elevated risk of early retirement.

methodsWithin the framework of the "Third German Sociomedical Panel of Employees", 1829 employees with prior sickness absence payments filled out a self-administered questionnaire. Participants had a mean age of 49.93 years (SD = 4.06). 6.2% indicated prior use of eHealth interventions. Potential predictors of acceptance of OEMH were examined based on the "Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology" (UTAUT) extended by work ability, mental health, eHealth literacy and demographic characteristics.

results89.1% (n = 1579) showed low to moderate acceptance (M = 2.20, SD = 1.05, range 1-5). A path analysis revealed significant, positive direct effects of UTAUT predictors on acceptance (performance expectancy: 0.48, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001; effort expectancy: 0.20, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001; social influence: 0.28, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001).Online time and frequency of online health information search were further positive direct predictors of acceptance. Model fit was good [χ

conclusionsAttitudes towards OEMH are rather disadvantageous in the studied risk group. Implementation of OEMH, therefore, requires a-priori education including promotion of awareness, favorable attitudes regarding efficacy and usability in a collaborative approach.

Indexed as

Mental HealthAdultAttitudeCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedOccupational MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineAcceptanceCohort studyMental healthOccupational e-mental healthWork ability

Identifiers

PMID29189895
OpenAlexW2771849147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.