Schuller Sofie, de Rijk Angelique, Corin Linda, Bertilsson Monica
Department of Public Administration and Sociology, School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Social Medicine, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Primary Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
J Occup Rehabil. 2024 Jul 11. doi: 10.1007/s10926-024-10220-z.
Mental health problems (MHPs) are subjected to workplace stigma and can deteriorate into common mental disorders (CMDs) and sickness absence (SA). Research has shown that personal stigmatizing attitudes limit managers' efforts towards employees with MHPs, but knowledge is lacking regarding stigma in social contexts (contextual stigma) and different types of possible preventive actions. This study investigates personal stigmatizing attitudes and three contextual stigma layers (employee, collegial, organizational) and different types of possible actions to prevent SA of employees with MHPs.
Survey data of 2769 Swedish managers working in the private sector were analysed. Personal stigmatizing attitudes were measured with the managerial stigma towards employee depression scale and supplemented with four additional items capturing contextual stigma. Managers watched video vignettes and assessed which preventive actions (n = 20) were possible to use in their organization. A sum score was calculated reflecting the 'number of actions'. Principal component analysis revealed three action types: adapt tasks and setting, involve experts, and social support. A score reflecting the 'possibilities to implement actions' was calculated for each type. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted with the four stigma layers as independent variables for each of the three action variables.
Personal stigmatizing attitudes and contextual stigma were significantly associated with both 'number of actions' and 'possibilities for implementing actions' relating to all action types. Patterns of associations with contextual stigma were significant but varied between the different action types.
This study substantiated the role of personal stigmatizing attitudes and contextual stigma in relation to possible actions of managers to prevent SA of employees with MHPs. The results emphasize the role of contextual stigma. Implications for practice and research are discussed.
心理健康问题(MHP)在工作场所会受到污名化,并且可能恶化为常见精神障碍(CMD)和病假(SA)。研究表明,个人的污名化态度会限制管理者对患有MHP的员工所做的努力,但对于社会背景下的污名(情境污名)以及不同类型的可能预防措施,我们还缺乏了解。本研究调查了个人的污名化态度、三个情境污名层面(员工层面、同事层面、组织层面)以及不同类型的可能行动,以预防患有MHP的员工请病假。
对2769名在瑞典私营部门工作的管理者的调查数据进行了分析。使用管理者对员工抑郁的污名量表来衡量个人的污名化态度,并补充了四个额外项目以捕捉情境污名。管理者观看视频短片,并评估在他们的组织中可以使用哪些预防措施(共20项)。计算了一个总分,反映“措施数量”。主成分分析揭示了三种措施类型:调整任务和工作环境、引入专家以及社会支持。为每种类型计算了一个反映“实施措施可能性”的分数。以四个污名层面作为三个行动变量各自的自变量,进行了多元线性回归分析。
个人的污名化态度和情境污名与所有措施类型的“措施数量”和“实施措施的可能性”均显著相关。与情境污名的关联模式显著,但在不同的措施类型之间有所不同。
本研究证实了个人的污名化态度和情境污名在管理者预防患有MHP的员工请病假的可能行动方面所起的作用。结果强调了情境污名的作用。讨论了对实践和研究的启示。