Objective Short- and medium-term effectiveness (up to 3 years) of individual level stress management interventions (SMI) at work were demonstrated, yet long-term effectiveness remains unexplored. We therefore aimed to address this research gap. Methods 94 male middle managers participated in a randomized wait-list controlled trial between 2006 and 2008 and in a post-trial-follow-up survey in 2015. During the first two years, all received an 18-hour psychotherapeutic SMI intervention which was based on the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model: tackling stressor on mismatch between effort and reward and promoting recovery on overcommitment. Work stress (i.e., ERI indicators) was the primary outcome, and the secondary outcome was depressive symptoms. The long-term effectiveness of the SMI was examined by mixed modeling, using an external control group (n = 94). Results Effort and reward were substantially improved with significant intervention ⁎ time interaction effects (p < 0.001) compared to the external control group; effects on overcommitment and depressive symptoms were also significant (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, resp.), though their trajectories in the intervention group were less sustainable. Conclusions The effectiveness of this psychotherapeutic SMI at work based on the ERI model was observed over a 9-year period, particularly on the effort-reward ratio.

The goal of the present study is to provide more information about which specific aspects of a day treatment program are experienced as most helpful by the patients. A semistructured interview was conducted. The narrated episodes were analyzed using a combination of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1997) and qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2000). The authors collected 69 interviews of 26 patients over a 12-month period. The results show eight groups of helpful factors (the transfer factors being the most specific day clinical group) that are embedded in a conceptual frame of other categories. The discussion shows how they can be linked to other theoretical and empirical concepts, including the Assimilation of Problematic Experiences Scale (Stiles et al., 1990).

No abstract

Abstract. Grounded theory analysis is a method widely used by qualitative researchers. This method interprets empirical materials to formulate a theory about a particular social phenomenon. In this article, we describe the steps of grounded theory method, which comprises open coding of the material followed by the grouping of open codes into categories that are increasingly abstracted to capture the essential meaning of the phenomenon. This depiction is offered as a set of explicit guidelines for researchers interested in the method.

(1) Background: A new health care offer called ‘psychotherapeutic consultation in the workplace’ is an early and effective intervention for employees with common mental disorders. Although cost-effective, it lacks a broader roll-out. This might be attributable to undefined context, mechanisms of change, and a lack of communication; therefore, this study explores how the new model works and where problems occur. (2) Methods: Semi-structured interviews on motivation, expectations and experiences with 20 involved experts. Experts were members of the company health promotion team, service users, and cooperating mental health specialists. Analysis was conducted with ATLAS.ti. (3) Results: The conceptual framework comprises three main topics: (a) structured implementation concept; (b) persons involved, shaping the concept’s processes; (c) and meaning and function of the offer within the given context. Concerning (c) we found three potential areas of conflict: (1) intra-corporate conflicts, (2) conflicts between company and employee, (3) and conflicts between the company health promotion and the health care system. Category (c) comprises the offer’s core characteristics which were described as low-threshold and preventive. Furthermore, the offer was perceived as convenient in handling, confidential, and having immediate impact on a person’s well-being. (4) Conclusions: Here we define structures, address the needs of the involved persons, and communicate foreseeable areas of conflict influences whether the implementation of the intervention succeeds.