Skip Navigation


Occupational Medicine Advance Access originally published online on June 16, 2006
Occupational Medicine 2006 56(7):461-468; doi:10.1093/occmed/kql042
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
56/7/461    most recent
kql042v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rebergen, D.
Right arrow Articles by van Mechelen, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rebergen, D.
Right arrow Articles by van Mechelen, W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Adherence to mental health guidelines by Dutch occupational physicians

David Rebergen, John Hoenen, Annemarie Heinemans, David Bruinvels, Arnold Bakker and Willem van Mechelen

EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Centre, Public and Occupational Health, Van der Boechorststraat 7, Amsterdam 1081 BT, the Netherlands

Background In 2000, the Dutch Association of Occupational Physicians published a national guideline for the management of employees with mental health problems.

Objectives To examine predictors of adherence to this guideline by Dutch occupational physicians (OPs).

Methods Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour, a questionnaire was developed about self-reported guideline adherence of OPs and possible predictors of this behaviour. A total of 165 OPs were approached to complete the questionnaire and registration forms of first consultations of workers with mental health problems. Performance indicators based on the guideline were developed to calculate performance rates of guideline adherence by OPs.

Results Eighty of 165 (48%) OPs approached completed the questionnaire. Fifty-six OPs returned one or more registration forms, totalling 344 consultations. On a five-point Likert scale, ranging from never (1) to always (5), the mean score on self-reported guideline adherence was 2.35, compared to a mean score of 4.06 on the intention to comply with the guideline. The mean performance rate of OPs ranging from 0 to 2 was 1.27 on diagnosis and 0.60 on guidance. No relation was found between self-reported guideline adherence and performance rates. Self-reported guideline adherence correlated significantly with perceived behaviour control (r = 0.48, P < 0.05), subjective norms (r = 0.33, P < 0.05) and positive job stress (r = 0.35, P < 0.05).

Conclusions Guideline adherence by Dutch OPs lags behind its acceptance. Further implementation efforts need to focus on diminishing barriers and enhancing social norms of OPs to work according to the guideline.

Keywords      Mental health; occupational mental health; occupational physicians

Correspondence to: David Rebergen, EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Centre, Public and Occupational Health, Van der Boechorststraat 7, Amsterdam 1081 BT, the Netherlands. Tel: +31 20 4449680; fax: +31 20 4448387; e-mail: d.rebergen{at}vumc.nl


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.