The Experts below are selected from a list of 25482 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Raymond Agius - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Differential reporting of work-related Mental Ill-Health in doctors.
Occupational medicine (Oxford England), 2017Co-Authors: A Y Zhou, Melanie Carder, Matthew Gittins, Louise Hussey, Raymond AgiusAbstract:Background Evidence suggests that the medical profession is reluctant to report Mental Ill-Health despite its high prevalence. Aims To compare differential reporting patterns in the incidence of work-related Mental Ill-Health (WRMIH) affecting doctors with selected comparison occupational groups, as determined by surveIllance by general practitioners (GPs), specialist psychiatrists and occupational physicians (OPs). Methods New cases of medically reported WRMIH were reported prospectively between 2006 and 2009 by GPs, psychiatrists and OPs as part of The Health and Occupation Research (THOR) network. For GP and psychiatry reporting schemes, incidence rates (IRs) for doctors, nurses, teachers, corporate managers and protective service workers were calculated using information from the Labour Force Survey as the denominator. In OP surveys, participating reporters provided denominator information to calculate IRs for doctors, nurses and teachers. Results Average annual IRs expressed per 100000 person/years employed as reported by GPs, psychiatrists and OPs, respectively, were: doctors (309, 971, 430), nurses (891, 208, 670), teachers (1040, 136, 210) and for GPs and psychiatrists, respectively, were: protective service workers (1432, 721) and corporate managers (428, 90). Psychiatrists reported a higher incidence of WRMIH in doctors, whereas GPs reported higher incidences of WRMIH in other occupations (chi-squared test, P < 0.001). Conclusions The distribution of the incidence of new cases reported across different schemes suggests a differential reporting pattern of WRMIH in doctors. The higher IR for doctors in psychiatrist-reported WRMIH could be due to factors such as disease severity and bypassing formal referral channels.
-
work related Mental Ill Health and stress in the uk 2002 05
Occupational Medicine, 2009Co-Authors: Melanie Carder, Susan Turner, Roseanne Mcnamee, Raymond AgiusAbstract:BACKGROUND: There is concern about the frequency of work-related Mental Ill-Health and 'stress' within the UK. AIMS: To provide a measure of the incidence of work-related Mental Ill-Health reported by specialist psychiatrists and occupational physicians to UK voluntary reporting schemes during the period 2002-05. Additionally, an investigation of determinants, notably factors identified by reporters as precipitants in cases of work-related Mental Ill-Health was undertaken. METHODS: The study used data collected by The Health and Occupation Reporting Network (THOR) from 2002 to 2005. Cases were analysed by age, gender, industry and precipitating event. RESULTS: Estimated annual average incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals of work-related Mental Ill-Health diagnoses reported to THOR between 2002 and 2005 by psychiatrists were 89 (78, 101) per mIllion and by occupational physicians were 1589 (1443, 1735) per mIllion. For both groups of reporters, anxiety and depression continued to make up the largest proportion of diagnoses. The majority of cases were attributed to factors such as workload and difficulties with other workers. There was some suggestion that the type of factors associated with the Mental Ill-Health case reports varied between industrial sectors. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related anxiety and depression and stress continue to constitute a significant proportion of all work-related Mental Ill-Health diagnoses in the UK, with workload and interpersonal relationships reported as significant risk factors. Further investigations may determine whether guidance for employers and employees on work-related Mental Ill-Health would benefit from being more industry specific.
-
Work-related Mental Ill-Health and ‘stress’ in the UK (2002–05)
Occupational medicine (Oxford England), 2009Co-Authors: Melanie Carder, Susan Turner, Roseanne Mcnamee, Raymond AgiusAbstract:BACKGROUND: There is concern about the frequency of work-related Mental Ill-Health and 'stress' within the UK. AIMS: To provide a measure of the incidence of work-related Mental Ill-Health reported by specialist psychiatrists and occupational physicians to UK voluntary reporting schemes during the period 2002-05. Additionally, an investigation of determinants, notably factors identified by reporters as precipitants in cases of work-related Mental Ill-Health was undertaken. METHODS: The study used data collected by The Health and Occupation Reporting Network (THOR) from 2002 to 2005. Cases were analysed by age, gender, industry and precipitating event. RESULTS: Estimated annual average incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals of work-related Mental Ill-Health diagnoses reported to THOR between 2002 and 2005 by psychiatrists were 89 (78, 101) per mIllion and by occupational physicians were 1589 (1443, 1735) per mIllion. For both groups of reporters, anxiety and depression continued to make up the largest proportion of diagnoses. The majority of cases were attributed to factors such as workload and difficulties with other workers. There was some suggestion that the type of factors associated with the Mental Ill-Health case reports varied between industrial sectors. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related anxiety and depression and stress continue to constitute a significant proportion of all work-related Mental Ill-Health diagnoses in the UK, with workload and interpersonal relationships reported as significant risk factors. Further investigations may determine whether guidance for employers and employees on work-related Mental Ill-Health would benefit from being more industry specific.
-
The validity and reliability of diagnoses of work-related Mental Ill-Health.
Occupational and environmental medicine, 2008Co-Authors: E O'neill, Raymond Agius, R. Mcnamee, Matthew Gittins, Louise Hussey, Sarah TurnerAbstract:Objectives: To establish the reliability and validity of work-related Mental Ill-Health diagnoses. Background: A UK-based surveIllance scheme for work-related Ill-Health involving occupational physicians (OPs) reporting suggests that Mental Ill-Health incidence is increasing by around 13% per year, with anxiety, depression and “other work-related stress” being the most common diagnoses. There have been no studies of the validity and reliability of such diagnoses. Given the existence of a large network of psychiatrists (PSYs) also involved in surveIllance of work-related Ill-Health, an opportunity arose to measure the concurrent validity and reliability of work-related Mental Ill-Health diagnoses. Methods: 100 anonymised summaries of cases previously reported by OPs or PSYs were collected; each was sent to 5 PSYs and 5 OPs, who assigned a diagnosis and judged whether the case was work-related. Concurrent validity of the Ill-Health aspect of the diagnoses, and of the opinion as to work-relatedness, was assessed by comparing the overall classifications of cases by OPs and PSYs. Reliability of the diagnostic classification was measured by kappa matrices. Results: Diagnostic proportions for PSYs and OPs demonstrated good agreement for anxiety, depression, anxiety plus depression and “stress” (11%, 34%, 27%, 14%) and (14%, 30%, 27%, 17%), respectively. In both groups, kappa coefficients were high for a psychotic diagnosis (0.78, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.83), but not as high for anxiety (0.27, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.32), depression (0.34, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.38) and “stress” (0.15, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.19). The odds ratio of classifying a case as work-related among PSYs compared to OPs was 2.39 (95% CI: 1.68 to 3.38), p Conclusions: The overall agreement between OPs and PSYs on Mental Ill-Health diagnoses suggests that OP diagnoses are valid for epidemiological purposes. However, the within-group reliability of the diagnosis “stress” is low. Given differences in judgements about work-relatedness, further research is needed to investigate this aspect of a diagnosis.
Simon Gilbody - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Smoking cessation in severe Mental Ill Health: what works? an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMC psychiatry, 2017Co-Authors: Emily Peckham, Sally Brabyn, Liz Cook, Garry A. Tew, Simon GilbodyAbstract:People with severe Mental Ill Health are more likely to smoke than those in the general population. It is therefore important that effective smoking cessation strategies are used to help people with severe Mental Ill Health to stop smoking. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost –effectiveness of smoking cessation and reduction strategies in adults with severe Mental Ill Health in both inpatient and outpatient settings. This is an update of a previous systematic review. Electronic databases were searched during September 2016 for randomised controlled trials comparing smoking cessation interventions to each other, usual care, or placebo. Data was extracted on biochemically-verified, self-reported smoking cessation (primary outcome), as well as on smoking reduction, body weight, psychiatric symptom, and adverse events (secondary outcomes). We included 26 trials of pharmacological and/or behavioural interventions. Eight trials comparing bupropion to placebo were pooled showing that bupropion improved quit rates significantly in the medium and long term but not the short term (short term RR = 6.42 95% CI 0.82–50.07; medium term RR = 2.93 95% CI 1.61–5.34; long term RR = 3.04 95% CI 1.10–8.42). Five trials comparing varenicline to placebo showed that that the addition of varenicline improved quit rates significantly in the medium term (RR = 4.13 95% CI 1.36–12.53). The results from five trials of specialised smoking cessation programmes were pooled and showed no evidence of benefit in the medium (RR = 1.32 95% CI 0.85–2.06) or long term (RR = 1.33 95% CI 0.85–2.08). There was insufficient data to allowing pooling for all time points for varenicline and trials of specialist smoking cessation programmes. Trials suggest few adverse events although safety data were not always reported. Only one pilot study reported cost effectiveness data. Bupropion and varenicline, which have been shown to be effective in the general population, also work for people with severe Mental Ill Health and their use in patients with stable psychiatric conditions. Despite good evidence for the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe Mental Ill Health, the percentage of people with severe Mental Ill Health who smoke remains higher than that for the general population.
-
Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR+): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Trials, 2017Co-Authors: Emily Peckham, Catherine Arundel, Della Bailey, Stuart Brownings, Caroline Fairhurst, Paul Heron, Steve Parrott, Simon GilbodyAbstract:Smoking is highly prevalent among people who have experience of severe Mental Ill Health, contributing to their poor physical Health. Despite the ‘culture’ of smoking in Mental Health services, people with severe Mental Ill Health often express a desire to quit smoking; however, the services currently available to aid quitting are those which are widely available to the general population and may not be suitable or effective for people with severe Mental Ill Health. The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation intervention specifically targeted at people with severe Mental Ill Health. SCIMITAR+ is a multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 400 participants aged 18 years and above with a documented diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who smoke. Potentially eligible participants identified in primary or secondary care wIll be screened, and baseline data collected. Eligible, consenting participants wIll be randomly allocated to one of two groups. In the intervention arm, the participant wIll be assigned a Mental Health professional trained to deliver smoking-cessation interventions who wIll work with the participant and participant’s GP or Mental Health specialist to provide an individually tailored smoking-cessation service. The comparator arm wIll be usual care – following current NICE guidelines for smoking cessation, in line with general guidance that is offered to all smokers, with no specific adaptation or enhancement in relation to severe Mental Ill Health. The primary outcome wIll be self-reported smoking cessation at 12 months verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurement. Secondary outcome measures include Body Mass Index at 12 months, the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence, Motivation to Quit questionnaire, SF-12, PHQ-9, GAD-7, EQ-5D-5 L, and Health service utilisation at 6 and 12 months. The economic evaluation at 12 months wIll be conducted in the form of an increMental cost-effectiveness analysis. SCIMITAR+ trial is the largest trial to our knowledge to investigate the effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation service for people with severe Mental Ill Health. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number, ISRCTN72955454 . Registered on 16 January 2015.
-
Bespoke smoking cessation for people with severe Mental Ill Health (SCIMITAR): a pilot randomised controlled trial
The lancet. Psychiatry, 2015Co-Authors: Simon Gilbody, Tim Bradshaw, Emily Peckham, Mei-see Man, Natasha Mitchell, Taeko Becque, Catherine Hewitt, Sarah Knowles, Claire PlannerAbstract:Summary Background People with severe Mental Ill Health are three times more likely to smoke but typically do not access conventional smoking cessation services, contributing to widening Health inequalities and reduced life expectancy. We aimed to pilot an intervention targeted at smokers with severe Mental Ill Health and to test methods of recruitment, randomisation, and follow up before implementing a full trial. Methods The Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR) is a pilot randomised controlled trial of a smoking cessation strategy designed specifically for people with severe Mental Ill Health, to be delivered by Mental Health nurses and consisting of behavioural support and drugs, compared with a conventional smoking cessation service (ie, usual care). Adults (aged 18 years or older) with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, who were current smokers, were recruited from NHS primary care and Mental Health settings in the UK (York, Scarborough, Hull, and Manchester). Eligible participants were randomly allocated to either usual care (control group) or usual care plus the bespoke smoking cessation strategy (intervention group). Randomisation was done via a central telephone system, with computer-generated random numbers. We could not mask participants, family doctors, and researchers to the treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was smoking status at 12 months, verified by carbon monoxide measurements or self-report. Only participants who provided an exhaled CO measurement or self-reported their smoking status at 12 months were included in the primary analysis. The trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN79497236. Findings Of 97 people recruited to the pilot study, 51 were randomly allocated to the control group and 46 were assigned to the intervention group. Participants engaged well with the bespoke smoking cessation strategy, but no individuals assigned to usual care accessed NHS smoking cessation services. At 12 months, 35 (69%) controls and 33 (72%) people assigned to the intervention group provided a CO measurement or self-reported their smoking status. Smoking cessation was highest among individuals who received the bespoke intervention (12/33 [36%] vs 8/35 [23%]; adjusted odds ratio 2·9, 95% CI 0·8–10·5). Interpretation We have shown the feasibility of recruiting and randomising people with severe Mental Ill Health in a trial of this nature. The level of engagement with a bespoke smoking cessation strategy was higher than with a conventional approach. The effectiveness and safety of a smoking cessation programme designed particularly for people with severe Mental Ill Health should be tested in a fully powered randomised controlled trial. Funding National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Emily Peckham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Smoking cessation in severe Mental Ill Health: what works? an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
BMC psychiatry, 2017Co-Authors: Emily Peckham, Sally Brabyn, Liz Cook, Garry A. Tew, Simon GilbodyAbstract:People with severe Mental Ill Health are more likely to smoke than those in the general population. It is therefore important that effective smoking cessation strategies are used to help people with severe Mental Ill Health to stop smoking. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost –effectiveness of smoking cessation and reduction strategies in adults with severe Mental Ill Health in both inpatient and outpatient settings. This is an update of a previous systematic review. Electronic databases were searched during September 2016 for randomised controlled trials comparing smoking cessation interventions to each other, usual care, or placebo. Data was extracted on biochemically-verified, self-reported smoking cessation (primary outcome), as well as on smoking reduction, body weight, psychiatric symptom, and adverse events (secondary outcomes). We included 26 trials of pharmacological and/or behavioural interventions. Eight trials comparing bupropion to placebo were pooled showing that bupropion improved quit rates significantly in the medium and long term but not the short term (short term RR = 6.42 95% CI 0.82–50.07; medium term RR = 2.93 95% CI 1.61–5.34; long term RR = 3.04 95% CI 1.10–8.42). Five trials comparing varenicline to placebo showed that that the addition of varenicline improved quit rates significantly in the medium term (RR = 4.13 95% CI 1.36–12.53). The results from five trials of specialised smoking cessation programmes were pooled and showed no evidence of benefit in the medium (RR = 1.32 95% CI 0.85–2.06) or long term (RR = 1.33 95% CI 0.85–2.08). There was insufficient data to allowing pooling for all time points for varenicline and trials of specialist smoking cessation programmes. Trials suggest few adverse events although safety data were not always reported. Only one pilot study reported cost effectiveness data. Bupropion and varenicline, which have been shown to be effective in the general population, also work for people with severe Mental Ill Health and their use in patients with stable psychiatric conditions. Despite good evidence for the effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for people with severe Mental Ill Health, the percentage of people with severe Mental Ill Health who smoke remains higher than that for the general population.
-
Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR+): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Trials, 2017Co-Authors: Emily Peckham, Catherine Arundel, Della Bailey, Stuart Brownings, Caroline Fairhurst, Paul Heron, Steve Parrott, Simon GilbodyAbstract:Smoking is highly prevalent among people who have experience of severe Mental Ill Health, contributing to their poor physical Health. Despite the ‘culture’ of smoking in Mental Health services, people with severe Mental Ill Health often express a desire to quit smoking; however, the services currently available to aid quitting are those which are widely available to the general population and may not be suitable or effective for people with severe Mental Ill Health. The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation intervention specifically targeted at people with severe Mental Ill Health. SCIMITAR+ is a multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 400 participants aged 18 years and above with a documented diagnosis of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who smoke. Potentially eligible participants identified in primary or secondary care wIll be screened, and baseline data collected. Eligible, consenting participants wIll be randomly allocated to one of two groups. In the intervention arm, the participant wIll be assigned a Mental Health professional trained to deliver smoking-cessation interventions who wIll work with the participant and participant’s GP or Mental Health specialist to provide an individually tailored smoking-cessation service. The comparator arm wIll be usual care – following current NICE guidelines for smoking cessation, in line with general guidance that is offered to all smokers, with no specific adaptation or enhancement in relation to severe Mental Ill Health. The primary outcome wIll be self-reported smoking cessation at 12 months verified by expired carbon monoxide (CO) measurement. Secondary outcome measures include Body Mass Index at 12 months, the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence, Motivation to Quit questionnaire, SF-12, PHQ-9, GAD-7, EQ-5D-5 L, and Health service utilisation at 6 and 12 months. The economic evaluation at 12 months wIll be conducted in the form of an increMental cost-effectiveness analysis. SCIMITAR+ trial is the largest trial to our knowledge to investigate the effectiveness of a bespoke smoking-cessation service for people with severe Mental Ill Health. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number, ISRCTN72955454 . Registered on 16 January 2015.
-
Bespoke smoking cessation for people with severe Mental Ill Health (SCIMITAR): a pilot randomised controlled trial
The lancet. Psychiatry, 2015Co-Authors: Simon Gilbody, Tim Bradshaw, Emily Peckham, Mei-see Man, Natasha Mitchell, Taeko Becque, Catherine Hewitt, Sarah Knowles, Claire PlannerAbstract:Summary Background People with severe Mental Ill Health are three times more likely to smoke but typically do not access conventional smoking cessation services, contributing to widening Health inequalities and reduced life expectancy. We aimed to pilot an intervention targeted at smokers with severe Mental Ill Health and to test methods of recruitment, randomisation, and follow up before implementing a full trial. Methods The Smoking Cessation Intervention for Severe Mental Ill Health Trial (SCIMITAR) is a pilot randomised controlled trial of a smoking cessation strategy designed specifically for people with severe Mental Ill Health, to be delivered by Mental Health nurses and consisting of behavioural support and drugs, compared with a conventional smoking cessation service (ie, usual care). Adults (aged 18 years or older) with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, who were current smokers, were recruited from NHS primary care and Mental Health settings in the UK (York, Scarborough, Hull, and Manchester). Eligible participants were randomly allocated to either usual care (control group) or usual care plus the bespoke smoking cessation strategy (intervention group). Randomisation was done via a central telephone system, with computer-generated random numbers. We could not mask participants, family doctors, and researchers to the treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was smoking status at 12 months, verified by carbon monoxide measurements or self-report. Only participants who provided an exhaled CO measurement or self-reported their smoking status at 12 months were included in the primary analysis. The trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN79497236. Findings Of 97 people recruited to the pilot study, 51 were randomly allocated to the control group and 46 were assigned to the intervention group. Participants engaged well with the bespoke smoking cessation strategy, but no individuals assigned to usual care accessed NHS smoking cessation services. At 12 months, 35 (69%) controls and 33 (72%) people assigned to the intervention group provided a CO measurement or self-reported their smoking status. Smoking cessation was highest among individuals who received the bespoke intervention (12/33 [36%] vs 8/35 [23%]; adjusted odds ratio 2·9, 95% CI 0·8–10·5). Interpretation We have shown the feasibility of recruiting and randomising people with severe Mental Ill Health in a trial of this nature. The level of engagement with a bespoke smoking cessation strategy was higher than with a conventional approach. The effectiveness and safety of a smoking cessation programme designed particularly for people with severe Mental Ill Health should be tested in a fully powered randomised controlled trial. Funding National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Melanie Carder - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Differential reporting of work-related Mental Ill-Health in doctors.
Occupational medicine (Oxford England), 2017Co-Authors: A Y Zhou, Melanie Carder, Matthew Gittins, Louise Hussey, Raymond AgiusAbstract:Background Evidence suggests that the medical profession is reluctant to report Mental Ill-Health despite its high prevalence. Aims To compare differential reporting patterns in the incidence of work-related Mental Ill-Health (WRMIH) affecting doctors with selected comparison occupational groups, as determined by surveIllance by general practitioners (GPs), specialist psychiatrists and occupational physicians (OPs). Methods New cases of medically reported WRMIH were reported prospectively between 2006 and 2009 by GPs, psychiatrists and OPs as part of The Health and Occupation Research (THOR) network. For GP and psychiatry reporting schemes, incidence rates (IRs) for doctors, nurses, teachers, corporate managers and protective service workers were calculated using information from the Labour Force Survey as the denominator. In OP surveys, participating reporters provided denominator information to calculate IRs for doctors, nurses and teachers. Results Average annual IRs expressed per 100000 person/years employed as reported by GPs, psychiatrists and OPs, respectively, were: doctors (309, 971, 430), nurses (891, 208, 670), teachers (1040, 136, 210) and for GPs and psychiatrists, respectively, were: protective service workers (1432, 721) and corporate managers (428, 90). Psychiatrists reported a higher incidence of WRMIH in doctors, whereas GPs reported higher incidences of WRMIH in other occupations (chi-squared test, P < 0.001). Conclusions The distribution of the incidence of new cases reported across different schemes suggests a differential reporting pattern of WRMIH in doctors. The higher IR for doctors in psychiatrist-reported WRMIH could be due to factors such as disease severity and bypassing formal referral channels.
-
work related Mental Ill Health and stress in the uk 2002 05
Occupational Medicine, 2009Co-Authors: Melanie Carder, Susan Turner, Roseanne Mcnamee, Raymond AgiusAbstract:BACKGROUND: There is concern about the frequency of work-related Mental Ill-Health and 'stress' within the UK. AIMS: To provide a measure of the incidence of work-related Mental Ill-Health reported by specialist psychiatrists and occupational physicians to UK voluntary reporting schemes during the period 2002-05. Additionally, an investigation of determinants, notably factors identified by reporters as precipitants in cases of work-related Mental Ill-Health was undertaken. METHODS: The study used data collected by The Health and Occupation Reporting Network (THOR) from 2002 to 2005. Cases were analysed by age, gender, industry and precipitating event. RESULTS: Estimated annual average incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals of work-related Mental Ill-Health diagnoses reported to THOR between 2002 and 2005 by psychiatrists were 89 (78, 101) per mIllion and by occupational physicians were 1589 (1443, 1735) per mIllion. For both groups of reporters, anxiety and depression continued to make up the largest proportion of diagnoses. The majority of cases were attributed to factors such as workload and difficulties with other workers. There was some suggestion that the type of factors associated with the Mental Ill-Health case reports varied between industrial sectors. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related anxiety and depression and stress continue to constitute a significant proportion of all work-related Mental Ill-Health diagnoses in the UK, with workload and interpersonal relationships reported as significant risk factors. Further investigations may determine whether guidance for employers and employees on work-related Mental Ill-Health would benefit from being more industry specific.
-
Work-related Mental Ill-Health and ‘stress’ in the UK (2002–05)
Occupational medicine (Oxford England), 2009Co-Authors: Melanie Carder, Susan Turner, Roseanne Mcnamee, Raymond AgiusAbstract:BACKGROUND: There is concern about the frequency of work-related Mental Ill-Health and 'stress' within the UK. AIMS: To provide a measure of the incidence of work-related Mental Ill-Health reported by specialist psychiatrists and occupational physicians to UK voluntary reporting schemes during the period 2002-05. Additionally, an investigation of determinants, notably factors identified by reporters as precipitants in cases of work-related Mental Ill-Health was undertaken. METHODS: The study used data collected by The Health and Occupation Reporting Network (THOR) from 2002 to 2005. Cases were analysed by age, gender, industry and precipitating event. RESULTS: Estimated annual average incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals of work-related Mental Ill-Health diagnoses reported to THOR between 2002 and 2005 by psychiatrists were 89 (78, 101) per mIllion and by occupational physicians were 1589 (1443, 1735) per mIllion. For both groups of reporters, anxiety and depression continued to make up the largest proportion of diagnoses. The majority of cases were attributed to factors such as workload and difficulties with other workers. There was some suggestion that the type of factors associated with the Mental Ill-Health case reports varied between industrial sectors. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related anxiety and depression and stress continue to constitute a significant proportion of all work-related Mental Ill-Health diagnoses in the UK, with workload and interpersonal relationships reported as significant risk factors. Further investigations may determine whether guidance for employers and employees on work-related Mental Ill-Health would benefit from being more industry specific.
Aideen Maguire - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
informal care giving and Mental Ill Health differential relationships by workload gender age and area remoteness in a uk region
Health & Social Care in The Community, 2017Co-Authors: Stefanie Doebler, Assumpta Ryan, Sally Shortall, Aideen MaguireAbstract:Informal care-giving can be a demanding role which has been shown to impact on physical, psychological and social well-being. Methodological weaknesses including small sample sizes and subjective measures of Mental Health have led to inconclusive evidence about the relationship between informal care-giving and Mental Ill-Health. This paper reports on a study carried out in a UK region which investigated the relationship between informal care-giving and Mental Ill-Health. The analysis was conducted by linking three data sets, the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study, the Northern Ireland Enhanced Prescribing Database and the Proximity to Service Index from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Our analysis used both a subjective measure of Mental Ill-Health, i.e. a question asked in the 2011 Census, and an objective measure, whether the respondents had been prescribed antidepressants by a General Practitioner between 2010 and 2012. We applied binary logistic multilevel modelling to these two responses to test whether, and for what sub-groups of the population, informal care-giving was related to Mental Ill-Health. The results showed that informal care-giving per se was not related to Mental Ill-Health, although there was a strong relationship between the intensity of the care-giving role and Mental Ill-Health. Females under 50, who provided over 19 hours of care, were not employed or worked part-time and who provided care in both 2001 and 2011 were at a statistically significantly elevated risk of Mental Ill-Health. Caregivers in remote areas with limited access to shops and services were also at a significantly increased risk as evidenced by prescription rates for antidepressants. With community care policies aimed at supporting people to remain at home, the paper highlights the need for further research in order to target resources appropriately.
-
Informal care‐giving and Mental Ill‐Health – differential relationships by workload, gender, age and area‐remoteness in a UK region
Health & social care in the community, 2016Co-Authors: Stefanie Doebler, Assumpta Ryan, Sally Shortall, Aideen MaguireAbstract:Informal care-giving can be a demanding role which has been shown to impact on physical, psychological and social well-being. Methodological weaknesses including small sample sizes and subjective measures of Mental Health have led to inconclusive evidence about the relationship between informal care-giving and Mental Ill-Health. This paper reports on a study carried out in a UK region which investigated the relationship between informal care-giving and Mental Ill-Health. The analysis was conducted by linking three data sets, the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study, the Northern Ireland Enhanced Prescribing Database and the Proximity to Service Index from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Our analysis used both a subjective measure of Mental Ill-Health, i.e. a question asked in the 2011 Census, and an objective measure, whether the respondents had been prescribed antidepressants by a General Practitioner between 2010 and 2012. We applied binary logistic multilevel modelling to these two responses to test whether, and for what sub-groups of the population, informal care-giving was related to Mental Ill-Health. The results showed that informal care-giving per se was not related to Mental Ill-Health, although there was a strong relationship between the intensity of the care-giving role and Mental Ill-Health. Females under 50, who provided over 19 hours of care, were not employed or worked part-time and who provided care in both 2001 and 2011 were at a statistically significantly elevated risk of Mental Ill-Health. Caregivers in remote areas with limited access to shops and services were also at a significantly increased risk as evidenced by prescription rates for antidepressants. With community care policies aimed at supporting people to remain at home, the paper highlights the need for further research in order to target resources appropriately.