Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29784044›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2018

Work stress prevention needs of employees and supervisors.

Bo M Havermans, Evelien P M Brouwers, Rianne J A Hoek, Johannes R Anema, Allard J van der Beek, Cécile R L Boot

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Line Managers' Perspectives and Responses when Employees Burn Out.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Bo M HavermansDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, PO box 7057, 1007, Amsterdam, MB, The Netherlands.
Evelien P M BrouwersSchool of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Tranzo, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Rianne J A HoekDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, PO box 7057, 1007, Amsterdam, MB, The Netherlands.
Johannes R AnemaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, PO box 7057, 1007, Amsterdam, MB, The Netherlands.
Allard J van der BeekDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, PO box 7057, 1007, Amsterdam, MB, The Netherlands. a.vanderbeek@vumc.nl.
Cécile R L BootDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, PO box 7057, 1007, Amsterdam, MB, The Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw (NL) 50-51510-98-302
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWork stress prevention can reduce health risks for individuals, as well as organisational and societal costs. The success of work stress interventions depends on proper implementation. Failure to take into account the needs of employees and supervisors can hinder intervention implementation. This study aimed to explore employee and supervisor needs regarding organisational work stress prevention.

methodsSemi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with employees (n = 7) and supervisors (n = 8) from different sectors, such as the finance, health care, and services industry. The interviews focused on respondents' needs regarding the prevention of work stress within an organisational setting. Performing thematic analysis, topics and themes were extracted from the verbatim transcribed interviews using Atlas.ti.

resultsBoth employees and supervisors reported a need for: 1) communication about work stress, 2) attention for determinants of work stress, 3) supportive circumstances (prerequisites) for work stress prevention, 4) involvement of various stakeholders in work stress prevention, and 5) availability of work stress prevention measures. Both employees and supervisors expressed the need for supervisors to communicate about work stress. Employees and supervisors reported similar psychosocial work factors that should be targeted for prevention (e.g., social support and autonomy). There was greater variety in the sub-themes within communication about work stress and supportive circumstances for work stress prevention in supervisor responses, and greater variety in the sub-themes within availability of work stress prevention measures in employee responses.

conclusionsBoth employees and supervisors were explicit about who should take part in communication about work stress, what prerequisites for work stress prevention should exist, and which stakeholders should be involved. These results can inform work stress prevention practice, supporting selection and implementation of interventions.

trial registrationThis study was registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register, trial code: NTR5527 .

Indexed as

Needs AssessmentOccupational HealthAdultCommunicationFemaleHumansInterprofessional RelationsMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOccupational StressQualitative ResearchEmployee perspectiveImplementationInterventionNeedsPreventionWork stress

Identifiers

PMID29784044
PMCPMC5963034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.