BackgroundGiven the prevalence of work stress-related ill-health in the Western world, it is important to find cost-effective, easy-to-use and valid measures which can be used both in research and in practice.AimsTo examine the validity and reliability of the single-item stress question (SISQ), distributed weekly by short message service (SMS) and used for measurement of work-related stress.MethodsThe convergent validity was assessed through associations between the SISQ and subscales of the Job Demand–Control–Support model, the Effort–Reward Imbalance model and scales measuring depression, exhaustion and sleep. The predictive validity was assessed using SISQ data collected through SMS. The reliability was analysed by the test–retest procedure.ResultsCorrelations between the SISQ and all the subscales except for job strain and esteem reward were significant, ranging from −0.186 to 0.627. The SISQ could also predict sick leave, depression and exhaustion at 12-month follow-up. The analysis on reliability revealed a satisfactory stability with a weighted kappa between 0.804 and 0.868.ConclusionsThe SISQ, administered through SMS, can be used for the screening of stress levels in a working population.

No abstract

This study is a process evaluation of a trial examining the effects of an organizational intervention (Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System or ProMES) on employee stress. The aims were to explore the implementation process and fidelity to the intervention guidelines, examine the influence of contextual factors (hindrances and facilitators) and explore participants’ experience of working with ProMES. We used the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance to guide the process evaluation. The recruitment, reach and dose delivered were satisfactory and participation high. The employees felt ProMES clarified priorities, gave control and increased participation in decision-making. However, difficulty in obtaining statistical productivity data from the central administration office (a central feature of the intervention) hindered full implementation and regular feedback meetings. Staffing shortages interfered with the implementation process, while having seven design teams and one consultant prevented all occupational groups from working simultaneously. A detailed examination of access to necessary organizational data should be undertaken before implementing ProMES. We recommend a better introduction for new employees, more work on design and packaging and giving employees more training in how to use the software program. The study contributes to our understanding of process evaluations in research into organizational stress management interventions.

Background Common mental disorders are highly prevalent in the working population, affecting about 1 in 5 persons in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. About 30% of those affected have a first period of sick leave. Despite several attempts to reduce the risk of sick leave among employees with common mental disorders, there is a lack of knowledge about effective, preventive interventions which aim to reduce such risks. This protocol describes the design of a study to evaluate the effectiveness of a problem-solving intervention delivered by first-line managers to employees with common mental disorders on the prevention of sick leave during the 12-month follow-up. Methods/design The study applies a two-armed cluster-randomized trial design of a problem-solving intervention conducted in private-sector companies. First-line managers are randomized into intervention- or control groups by computer-generated random numbers, allocation ratio 1:1. Employees are eligible if at risk for future sick leave due to common mental disorders. These are identified by self-reported psychological health measured by the General Health Questionnaire 12-item, cut-off ≥3, or a positive answer to risk of sick leave. The intervention is based on problem-solving principles. It involves the training of the first-line managers who then deliver the intervention to employees identified at risk of sick leave. First-line managers in the control group receives a lecture. Primary outcome is number of registered days of sick leave due to common mental disorders during the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are general health, psychological symptoms, work performance, work ability and psychosocial work environment. A process evaluation will examine the intervention’s reach, fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, satisfaction and context. Research assistants managing the screening procedure, outcome assessors and employees are blinded to randomization and allocation. Discussion The study includes analyses of the intervention’s effectiveness and an alongside process evaluation. Methodological strengths and limitations, for example the risk of selection bias, attrition and risk of contamination are discussed. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04975750 Date of registration: 08/16/2021.

Background: The study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMes) intervention to reduce employee work-related stress and enhance work performance. Methods: A prospective cohort study was used to undertake the evaluation from a business perspective. Objective workload data and stress were gathered repeatedly over a 17-month period (i.e., before and after intervention). Independent t-test and an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis were used in the analysis. The average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) was calculated as a ratio of the average cost of the intervention and the effect sizes of the different outcomes to reflect the average cost per clinician for each unit change in outcome. Results: Based on the results of the ITS analysis, an expenditure of EUR 41,487 was linked with no change in stress levels, according to the ACER for stress. In addition, the expenditures associated with each unit change were EUR 3319 for overall tasks per hour worked, EUR 2761 for visits per hour worked, EUR 2880 for administrative tasks, but EUR 9123 for answering phone calls. Conclusions: ProMes is not cost–effective in terms of work-related stress levels, but the intervention seemed to have increased efficiency in some objective work performance measures, albeit at a relatively high extra cost.