| Title |
Predicting the Effectiveness of Work-Focused CBT for Common Mental Disorders: The Influence of Baseline Self-Efficacy, Depression and Anxiety
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10926-018-9760-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Veerle Brenninkmeijer, Suzanne E. Lagerveld, Roland W. B. Blonk, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Leoniek D. N. V. Wijngaards-de Meij |
| Abstract |
Purpose This study examined who benefits most from a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based intervention that aims to enhance return to work (RTW) among employees who are absent due to common mental disorders (CMDs) (e.g., depression, anxiety, or adjustment disorder). We researched the influence of baseline work-related self-efficacy and mental health (depressive complaints and anxiety) on treatment outcomes of two psychotherapeutic interventions. Methods Using a quasi-experimental design, 12-month follow-up data of 168 employees were collected. Participants either received work-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (W-CBT) that integrated work aspects early into the treatment (n = 89) or regular cognitive behavioural therapy (R-CBT) without a focus on work (n = 79). Results Compared with R-CBT, W-CBT resulted in a faster partial RTW, irrespective of baseline self-efficacy. Among individuals with high self-efficacy, W-CBT also resulted in faster full RTW. The effectiveness of W-CBT on RTW did not depend on baseline depressive complaints or anxiety. The decline of mental health complaints did not differ between the two interventions, nor depended on baseline self-efficacy or mental health. Conclusions Considering the benefits of W-CBT for partial RTW, we recommend this intervention as a preferred method for employees with CMDs, irrespective of baseline self-efficacy, depression and anxiety. For individuals with high baseline self-efficacy, this intervention also results in higher full RTW. For those with low self-efficacy, extra exercises or components may be needed to promote full RTW. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 166 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 31 | 19% |
| Unknown | 53 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 43 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 10% |
| Unknown | 61 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#18,587,406
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#534
of 617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,251
of 474,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 474,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.