{"title":"[精神压力风险评估]。","authors":"Maren Kersten, Agnessa Kozak, Mareike Adler, Claudia Wohlert, Susanne Stamer, 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":"{\"title\":\"[Risk assessment for mental stress].\",\"authors\":\"Maren Kersten, Agnessa Kozak, Mareike Adler, Claudia Wohlert, Susanne Stamer, 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}","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}
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.