Skip Navigation


Occupational Medicine Advance Access originally published online on November 10, 2008
Occupational Medicine 2009 59(1):20-24; doi:10.1093/occmed/kqn142
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
59/1/20    most recent
kqn142v1
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Greenberg, N.
Right arrow Articles by Wessely, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Greenberg, N.
Right arrow Articles by Wessely, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

An evaluation of stress education in the Royal Navy

N. Greenberg1, V. Langston2, N. T. Fear1, M. Jones2 and S. Wessely2

1 Academic Centre for Defence Mental Health, King’s College London, London, UK
2 King’s Centre for Military Health Research, King’s College London, London, UK

Background Psychoeducational programmes aim to reduce the morbidity associated with exposure to stressful events. Although they are widely used, there are conflicting views as to how or why they might be effective.

Aim To examine exposure to ‘stress’ education within the Royal Navy (RN) and ascertain any links between stress education and mental health status.

Methods In all, 1559 RN personnel were surveyed using a study questionnaire which asked about exposure to and quality of any stress education provided during service. Participants also completed two measures of psychological health, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 item and the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated and 95% confidence intervals were computed using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for socio-demographic variables.

Results The response rate was 70%; 47% of the sample reported having received a stress brief during service. Those who reported having received a brief had better general mental health (measured by the GHQ) than those who had not [adjusted, OR = 0.76 (0.59–0.98)]. When brief quality was taken into account, only those who received a brief and considered it ‘useful’ were significantly less distressed [adjusted, OR = 0.65 (0.49–0.86)]. Poor-quality briefs were no better than having had no brief at all [adjusted, OR = 1.04 (0.74–1.47)].

Conclusions Our data indicate that only educational stress briefs which are relevant for the target audience may be beneficial. Simply providing stress briefings, without thought to their quality, may constitute a waste of resources.

Keywords      Mental health; military; psychoeducation; stress

Correspondence to: N. Greenberg, Academic Centre for Defence Mental Health, King’s College London, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RJ, UK. Tel: +44 0207 848 5351; fax: +44 207 848 5397; e-mail sososanta{at}aol.com


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.