患有精神障碍的全职员工生产力下降

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics Pub Date : 2001-04-30 DOI:10.1002/mhp.93
Debbie Lim, Kristy Sanderson, Gavin Andrews
{"title":"患有精神障碍的全职员工生产力下降","authors":"Debbie Lim,&nbsp;Kristy Sanderson,&nbsp;Gavin Andrews","doi":"10.1002/mhp.93","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Background:</b> Few studies have systematically compared the relationship between lost work productivity (work impairment) and mental disorders using population surveys.</p><p><b>Aims:</b> (1) To identify the importance of individual mental disorders and disorder co-occurrences (comorbidity) as predictors of two measures of work impairment over the past month—work loss (number of days unable to perform usual activities) and work cutback (number of days where usual activities were restricted); (2) to examine whether different types of disorder have a greater impact on work impairment in some occupations than others; (3) to determine whether work impairment in those with a disorder is related to treatment seeking.</p><p><b>Method:</b> Data were based on full-time workers identified by the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being, a household survey of mental disorders modeled on the US National Comorbidity Survey. Diagnoses were of one-month DSM-IV affective, anxiety and substance-related disorders. Screening instruments generated likely cases of ICD-10 personality disorders. The association of disorder types and their co-occurrences with work impairment was examined using multivariate linear regression. Odds ratios determined the significance of mental disorder prevalence across occupations, and planned contrasts were used to test for differences in work impairment across occupations within disorder types. The relationship between work impairment and treatment seeking was determined for each broad diagnostic group with <i>t</i>-tests.</p><p><b>Results:</b> Depression, generalized anxiety disorder and personality disorders were predictive of work impairment after controlling for impairment due to physical disorders. Among pure and comorbid disorders, affective and comorbid anxiety–affective disorders respectively were associated with the greatest amount of work impairment. For all disorders, stronger associations were obtained for work cutback than for work loss. No relationship was found between type of occupation and the impact of different types of disorder on work impairment. Only 15% of people with any mental disorder had sought help in the past month. For any mental disorder, significantly greater work loss and work cutback was associated with treatment seeking, but comparisons within specific disorder types were not significant.</p><p><b>Discussion:</b> A substantial amount of lost productivity due to mental disorders comes from within the full-time working population. The greater impact of mental disorders on work cutback compared to work loss suggests that work cutback provides a more sensitive measure of work impairment in those with mental disorders. Work impairment was based on self-report only. While there is evidence for the reliability of self-assessed work loss days, no reliability or validity studies have been conducted for work cutback days. The low rates of treatment seeking are a major health issue for the workforce, particularly for affective and anxiety disorders, which are important predictors of lost productivity.</p><p><b>Implications for health policies and further research:</b> Future research should investigate the validity of work cutback, given its importance as a measure of lost productivity in people with mental disorders. Employers need to be aware of the extent to which mental disorders affect their employees so that effective work place interventions can take place. Treatment should be targeted at people with affective and anxiety disorders, particularly where they co-occur. © 2000 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":"3 3","pages":"139-146"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/mhp.93","citationCount":"267","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lost productivity among full-time workers with mental disorders\",\"authors\":\"Debbie Lim,&nbsp;Kristy Sanderson,&nbsp;Gavin Andrews\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mhp.93\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><b>Background:</b> Few studies have systematically compared the relationship between lost work productivity (work impairment) and mental disorders using population surveys.</p><p><b>Aims:</b> (1) To identify the importance of individual mental disorders and disorder co-occurrences (comorbidity) as predictors of two measures of work impairment over the past month—work loss (number of days unable to perform usual activities) and work cutback (number of days where usual activities were restricted); (2) to examine whether different types of disorder have a greater impact on work impairment in some occupations than others; (3) to determine whether work impairment in those with a disorder is related to treatment seeking.</p><p><b>Method:</b> Data were based on full-time workers identified by the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being, a household survey of mental disorders modeled on the US National Comorbidity Survey. Diagnoses were of one-month DSM-IV affective, anxiety and substance-related disorders. Screening instruments generated likely cases of ICD-10 personality disorders. The association of disorder types and their co-occurrences with work impairment was examined using multivariate linear regression. Odds ratios determined the significance of mental disorder prevalence across occupations, and planned contrasts were used to test for differences in work impairment across occupations within disorder types. The relationship between work impairment and treatment seeking was determined for each broad diagnostic group with <i>t</i>-tests.</p><p><b>Results:</b> Depression, generalized anxiety disorder and personality disorders were predictive of work impairment after controlling for impairment due to physical disorders. Among pure and comorbid disorders, affective and comorbid anxiety–affective disorders respectively were associated with the greatest amount of work impairment. For all disorders, stronger associations were obtained for work cutback than for work loss. No relationship was found between type of occupation and the impact of different types of disorder on work impairment. Only 15% of people with any mental disorder had sought help in the past month. For any mental disorder, significantly greater work loss and work cutback was associated with treatment seeking, but comparisons within specific disorder types were not significant.</p><p><b>Discussion:</b> A substantial amount of lost productivity due to mental disorders comes from within the full-time working population. The greater impact of mental disorders on work cutback compared to work loss suggests that work cutback provides a more sensitive measure of work impairment in those with mental disorders. Work impairment was based on self-report only. While there is evidence for the reliability of self-assessed work loss days, no reliability or validity studies have been conducted for work cutback days. The low rates of treatment seeking are a major health issue for the workforce, particularly for affective and anxiety disorders, which are important predictors of lost productivity.</p><p><b>Implications for health policies and further research:</b> Future research should investigate the validity of work cutback, given its importance as a measure of lost productivity in people with mental disorders. Employers need to be aware of the extent to which mental disorders affect their employees so that effective work place interventions can take place. Treatment should be targeted at people with affective and anxiety disorders, particularly where they co-occur. © 2000 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics\",\"volume\":\"3 3\",\"pages\":\"139-146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/mhp.93\",\"citationCount\":\"267\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mhp.93\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mhp.93","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 267

摘要

背景:很少有研究使用人口调查系统地比较工作生产力损失(工作障碍)与精神障碍之间的关系。目的:(1)确定个体精神障碍和障碍合并症(共病)作为过去一个月工作障碍的两个指标的预测因素的重要性——工作损失(无法进行日常活动的天数)和工作减少(日常活动受到限制的天数);(2) 研究不同类型的障碍在某些职业中对工作障碍的影响是否比其他职业更大;(3) 以确定障碍患者的工作障碍是否与寻求治疗有关。方法:数据基于澳大利亚全国心理健康和幸福调查确定的全职工作者,这是一项基于美国全国共病调查的精神障碍家庭调查。诊断为一个月DSM-IV情感、焦虑和物质相关障碍。筛查仪器产生了ICD-10人格障碍的可能病例。使用多变量线性回归检验了障碍类型及其共同发生与工作障碍的关系。比值比决定了不同职业的精神障碍患病率的显著性,并使用计划的对比来测试障碍类型中不同职业的工作障碍差异。用t检验确定了每个广泛诊断组的工作障碍与寻求治疗之间的关系。结果:在控制了身体障碍造成的障碍后,抑郁症、广泛性焦虑症和人格障碍可预测工作障碍。在纯粹障碍和共病障碍中,情感性和共病性焦虑-情感障碍分别与最大程度的工作障碍相关。对于所有的疾病,减少工作比减少工作的关联性更强。职业类型与不同类型的障碍对工作障碍的影响之间没有关系。在过去的一个月里,只有15%的精神障碍患者寻求过帮助。对于任何精神障碍,明显更大的工作损失和工作削减与寻求治疗有关,但在特定障碍类型内的比较并不显著。讨论:由于精神障碍导致的大量生产力损失来自全职工作人群。与工作损失相比,精神障碍对工作削减的影响更大,这表明工作削减为精神障碍患者的工作障碍提供了更敏感的衡量标准。工作障碍仅基于自我报告。虽然有证据表明自我评估的工作损失天数具有可靠性,但尚未对工作减少天数进行可靠性或有效性研究。低就诊率是劳动力的一个主要健康问题,尤其是情感和焦虑障碍,这是生产力下降的重要预测因素。对卫生政策和进一步研究的影响:鉴于裁员作为衡量精神障碍患者生产力损失的重要指标,未来的研究应该调查裁员的有效性。雇主需要意识到精神障碍对员工的影响程度,以便采取有效的工作场所干预措施。治疗应该针对有情感和焦虑障碍的人,特别是在他们同时发生的地方。©2000 John Wiley&;有限公司。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Lost productivity among full-time workers with mental disorders

Background: Few studies have systematically compared the relationship between lost work productivity (work impairment) and mental disorders using population surveys.

Aims: (1) To identify the importance of individual mental disorders and disorder co-occurrences (comorbidity) as predictors of two measures of work impairment over the past month—work loss (number of days unable to perform usual activities) and work cutback (number of days where usual activities were restricted); (2) to examine whether different types of disorder have a greater impact on work impairment in some occupations than others; (3) to determine whether work impairment in those with a disorder is related to treatment seeking.

Method: Data were based on full-time workers identified by the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being, a household survey of mental disorders modeled on the US National Comorbidity Survey. Diagnoses were of one-month DSM-IV affective, anxiety and substance-related disorders. Screening instruments generated likely cases of ICD-10 personality disorders. The association of disorder types and their co-occurrences with work impairment was examined using multivariate linear regression. Odds ratios determined the significance of mental disorder prevalence across occupations, and planned contrasts were used to test for differences in work impairment across occupations within disorder types. The relationship between work impairment and treatment seeking was determined for each broad diagnostic group with t-tests.

Results: Depression, generalized anxiety disorder and personality disorders were predictive of work impairment after controlling for impairment due to physical disorders. Among pure and comorbid disorders, affective and comorbid anxiety–affective disorders respectively were associated with the greatest amount of work impairment. For all disorders, stronger associations were obtained for work cutback than for work loss. No relationship was found between type of occupation and the impact of different types of disorder on work impairment. Only 15% of people with any mental disorder had sought help in the past month. For any mental disorder, significantly greater work loss and work cutback was associated with treatment seeking, but comparisons within specific disorder types were not significant.

Discussion: A substantial amount of lost productivity due to mental disorders comes from within the full-time working population. The greater impact of mental disorders on work cutback compared to work loss suggests that work cutback provides a more sensitive measure of work impairment in those with mental disorders. Work impairment was based on self-report only. While there is evidence for the reliability of self-assessed work loss days, no reliability or validity studies have been conducted for work cutback days. The low rates of treatment seeking are a major health issue for the workforce, particularly for affective and anxiety disorders, which are important predictors of lost productivity.

Implications for health policies and further research: Future research should investigate the validity of work cutback, given its importance as a measure of lost productivity in people with mental disorders. Employers need to be aware of the extent to which mental disorders affect their employees so that effective work place interventions can take place. Treatment should be targeted at people with affective and anxiety disorders, particularly where they co-occur. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
期刊最新文献
Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Preventive Parent Training for Early Childhood Disruptive Behaviour. Mental Health Expenditure in Canada. Relationship of Cryptocurrency Trading to Quality of Life, Sleep and Stress Levels in Academics Maternal Depression and Physical Health of Under-Five Children in Turkey. PERSPECTIVE: A Fireside Chat about Global Mental Health with Dr. Esther Duflo, Nobel Laureate in Economics.
×
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