ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2022
Swedish managers' experience-based understanding of the Capacity to work in employees with Common Mental Disorders: a Focus Group Study.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Managers' Use of Organizational Resources when Supporting Employees with Common Mental Disorders: A Swedish Qualitative Study.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Mental Health Stigma in the Workplace and its Association with Possible Actions of Managers to Prevent Sickness Absence of Employees with Mental Health Problems in the Swedish Private Sector: a Video Vignette Study.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Women's health and psychological well-being in the return-to-work process after long-term sick leave for common mental disorders: women's and first-line managers' perspectives.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Managers' attitudes to depression and the association with their rating of how work capacity is affected in employees with common mental disorders.BMC research notes · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUnderstanding of the capacity to work among employees with common mental disorders (CMDs) is important, but contemporary knowledge on this issue lacks the managers' perspective. The aim of this study was to explore and describe managers' experience-based understanding of capacity to work in employees with CMD.
methodsA qualitative focus group study was designed. Managers with experience in supporting employees with CMD were recruited via organizations and networks. Eight focus group interviews with 31 participants took place.
resultsThe analysis resulted in five categories. (1) Capacity to mentally focus on work tasks decreases or disappears, with negative consequences for work output. (2) Capacity to commit to continuous and coherent task changes, making tasks that span longer periods of time difficult. (3) Capacity to independently adapt to the needs of the situation decreases, and employees need more guidance and instructions than usual. (4) Capacity to keep up professional appearances is reduced, and the employees struggle with the professional role. (5) Ability to interact socially and professionally decreases, which potentially causes conflicts at the workplace.
conclusionsThis study adds managers' perspective to the increasing knowledge on how capacity to work is influenced by CMDs. Managers understand CMDs in employees as changed, reducing the capacities needed for occupational functioning. A deeper understanding of reduced capacity to work is needed to adapt workplaces, and our findings can facilitate work accommodations for employees with CMDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.