[Risk assessment for mental stress].

Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-26 DOI:10.1007/s40664-021-00450-w
Maren Kersten, Agnessa Kozak, Mareike Adler, Claudia Wohlert, Susanne Stamer, Sabine Gregersen
{"title":"[Risk assessment for mental stress].","authors":"Maren Kersten,&nbsp;Agnessa Kozak,&nbsp;Mareike Adler,&nbsp;Claudia Wohlert,&nbsp;Susanne Stamer,&nbsp;Sabine Gregersen","doi":"10.1007/s40664-021-00450-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of the risk assessment for mental stress is to evaluate the hazards associated with the work in order to derive measures for the healthy design of the work. The range of procedures for assessment of mental stress is, however, extensive and unclear. Against this background, this article presents a reduced and structured overview of instruments for social and healthcare services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was carried out to identify appropriate tools. Prior to beginning the search, criteria were defined to test the suitability of the identified tools. For one thing, there are minimum requirements that must be fulfilled so that the tool is accepted for the review process. There are also structuring criteria that can be divided into descriptive and evaluative aspects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified a total of 83 instruments for risk assessment of mental stress (GBU Psyche), of which 58 were accepted for a further suitability review process following initial evaluation. The comprehensive review of 44 services from the nonsystematic search has so far been completed. Of these, 19 procedures were deemed suitable and are presented in a structured overview matrix. The review of the 14 procedures from the systematic search is projected to be finished by mid-2022 and is part of the continual review process.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The numerous procedures identified for risk assessment of mental stress clearly show that it is reasonable and relevant to find a limited selection of tools that have been tested in practice and are quality assured. The criteria for evaluating the tools, which are also presented in this article, render this selection transparent.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8620315/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40664-021-00450-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: The aim of the risk assessment for mental stress is to evaluate the hazards associated with the work in order to derive measures for the healthy design of the work. The range of procedures for assessment of mental stress is, however, extensive and unclear. Against this background, this article presents a reduced and structured overview of instruments for social and healthcare services.

Methods: A comprehensive search was carried out to identify appropriate tools. Prior to beginning the search, criteria were defined to test the suitability of the identified tools. For one thing, there are minimum requirements that must be fulfilled so that the tool is accepted for the review process. There are also structuring criteria that can be divided into descriptive and evaluative aspects.

Results: The search identified a total of 83 instruments for risk assessment of mental stress (GBU Psyche), of which 58 were accepted for a further suitability review process following initial evaluation. The comprehensive review of 44 services from the nonsystematic search has so far been completed. Of these, 19 procedures were deemed suitable and are presented in a structured overview matrix. The review of the 14 procedures from the systematic search is projected to be finished by mid-2022 and is part of the continual review process.

Discussion: The numerous procedures identified for risk assessment of mental stress clearly show that it is reasonable and relevant to find a limited selection of tools that have been tested in practice and are quality assured. The criteria for evaluating the tools, which are also presented in this article, render this selection transparent.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
[精神压力风险评估]。
背景:精神压力风险评估的目的是评估与工作有关的危害,以便得出工作健康设计的措施。然而,评估精神压力的程序范围广泛且不明确。在此背景下,本文对社会和医疗保健服务工具进行了简化和结构化的概述。方法:进行全面的搜索,以确定合适的工具。在开始搜索之前,定义了标准来测试所识别工具的适用性。首先,必须满足一些最低要求,这样工具才能被审查过程所接受。也有结构标准,可以分为描述性和评估性方面。结果:研究共确定了83种用于精神压力风险评估的工具(GBU Psyche),其中58种在初步评估后接受进一步的适用性审查过程。迄今为止,已完成了对44项非系统搜索服务的全面审查。其中,19个程序被认为是合适的,并在一个结构化的概览矩阵中提出。对来自系统搜索的14项程序的审查预计将于2022年中期完成,并且是持续审查过程的一部分。讨论:确定用于精神压力风险评估的众多程序清楚地表明,找到经过实践测试且质量有保证的有限选择的工具是合理和相关的。本文还介绍了评估工具的标准,这些标准使选择变得透明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1