Objectives Common mental disorders (CMDs) are among the main causes of sickness absence and can lead to suffering and high costs for individuals, employers and the society. The occupational health service (OHS) can offer work-directed interventions to support employers and employees. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on sickness absence and health of a work-directed intervention given by the OHS to employees with CMDs or stress-related symptoms. Methods Randomisation was conducted at the OHS consultant level and each consultant was allocated into either giving a brief problem-solving intervention (PSI) or care as usual (CAU). The study group consisted of 100 employees with stress symptoms or CMDs. PSI was highly structured and used a participatory approach, involving both the employee and the employee’s manager. CAU was also work-directed but not based on the same theoretical concepts as PSI. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, at 6 and at 12 months. Primary outcome was registered sickness absence during the 1-year follow-up period. Among the secondary outcomes were self-registered sickness absence, return to work (RTW) and mental health. Results A statistical interaction for group × time was found on the primary outcome (p=0.033) and PSI had almost 15 days less sickness absence during follow-up compared with CAU. Concerning the secondary outcomes, PSI showed an earlier partial RTW and the mental health improved in both groups without significant group differences. Conclusion PSI was effective in reducing sickness absence which was the primary outcome in this study.

The cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of a work-directed intervention implemented by the occupational health service (OHS) for employees with common mental disorders (CMD) or stress related problems at work were investigated. The economic evaluation was conducted in a two-armed clustered RCT. Employees received either a problem-solving based intervention (PSI; n = 41) or care as usual (CAU; n = 59). Both were work-directed interventions. Data regarding sickness absence and production loss at work was gathered during a one-year follow-up. Bootstrap techniques were used to conduct a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) from both an employer and societal perspective. Intervention costs were lower for PSI than CAU. Costs for long-term sickness absence were higher for CAU, whereas costs for short-term sickness absence and production loss at work were higher for PSI. Mainly due to these costs, PSI was not cost-effective from the employer’s perspective. However, PSI was cost-beneficial from a societal perspective. CEA showed that a one-day reduction of long-term sickness absence costed on average €101 for PSI, a cost that primarily was borne by the employer. PSI reduced the socio-economic burden compared to CAU and could be recommended to policy makers. However, reduced long-term sickness absence, i.e., increased work attendance, was accompanied by employees perceiving higher levels of production loss at work and thus increased the cost for employers. This partly explains why an effective intervention was not cost-effective from the employer’s perspective. Hence, additional adjustments and/or support at the workplace might be needed for reducing the loss of production at work.

Summary: Task interruptions and background speech, both part of the everyday situation in office environments, impair cognitive performance. The current experiments explored the combined effects of background speech and task interruptions on word processed writing—arguably, a task representative of office work. Participants wrote stories, in silence or in the presence of background speech (monologues, halfalogues and dialogues), and were occasionally interrupted by a secondary task. Writing speed was comparably low during the immediate period after the interruption (Experiments 1 and 2); it took 10–15 s to regain full writing speed. Background speech had only a small effect on performance (Experiment 1), but a dialogue was more disruptive than a halfalogue (Experiment 2). Background speech did not add to the cost caused by task interruptions. However, subjective measures suggested that speech, just as interruptions, contributed to perceived workload. The findings are discussed in view of attentional capture and interference‐by‐process mechanisms.© 2016 The Authors. Applied Cognitive Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The quality of indoor environments influences satisfaction, health, and work performance of occupants. Additional understanding of the theoretical and practical value of individual indoor parameters in relation to health and performance aids indoor climate designers to obtain desired outcomes. This also results in expenditure savings and increased revenue as well as health care and improved productivity. This paper reports on two experiments that investigated how heat, cooling strategy and background noise influence performance in a full-scale classroom mockup setting. The results show that heat and background noise are detrimental to logic-based tasks and to writing, whilst cooling manipulations can protect performance. Implications for indoor environmental design are discussed.

It is not unusual that people have to write in an environment where background speech is present. Background speech can vary in both speech intelligibility and location of the sound source. Earlier research has shown disruptive effects of background speech on writing performance. To expand and reinforce this knowledge, the present study investigated the role of number of voices and sound source location in the relation between background speech and writing performance. Participants wrote texts in quiet or in background speech existing of one or seven voices talking simultaneously, located in front of or behind them. Overall, one voice was more disruptive than seven voices talking simultaneously. Self‐reports showed that sound from the front was more disruptive compared to sound from behind. Results are in line with theory of interference‐by‐process, attentional capture and the cross‐modal theory of attention. The relevance of the results for open‐office environments is discussed.

Welcome to the largest platform for early-stage research