Work-anxiety-coping intervention improves work-coping perception while a recreational intervention leads to deterioration: Results from a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT

Work-anxieties are costly and need early intervention. The perception of being able to cope with work is a basic requirement for work ability. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether a cognitive behavioural, work-anxiety-coping group (WAG) intervention leads to better work-coping perception than an unspecific recreational group (RG). Heterogeneous people in medical rehabilitation, who were due to return to work, were interviewed concerning their work-anxieties, and either randomly assigned to a WAG (n = 85) or a RG (n = 95). The participants (with an average of 50 years old [range 23–64]; 51% women; 70% workers or employees, 25% academics, 5% unskilled) followed the group intervention for four or six sessions. The perceived work-coping was assessed by self-rating (Inventory for Job-Coping and Return Intention JoCoRi) after each group session. Although participants had a slight temporary decrease in work-coping after group session two (from M₁ = 2.47 to M₂ = 2.28, d_Cohen = −.22), the WAG led to the improvement of perceived work-coping over the intervention course (from M₁ = 2.47 to M₆ = 2.65, d_Cohen = .18). In contrast, participants from the RG reported lower work-coping after six group sessions (from M₁ = 2.26 to M₆ = 2.02, d_Cohen = −.18). It is considered that people with work-anxieties need training in work-coping. By focusing on recreation only, this may lead to deterioration of work-coping. Indeed, intervention designers should be aware of temporary deterioration (side effects) when confronting participants with work-coping.

KEYWORDS:

• Work-anxiety
• work-coping
• return to work
• intervention
• mental health

Acknowledgements

The author wants to thank Dipl.-Psych. Bianka Flöge and Dipl.-Psych. Marie-Luise Heidrich for assistance in diagnostics and study monitoring in the field, as well as the physician Hadice Ayhan who carried out the group interventions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity has been violated, χ² (5) = 92.94, p = .000; therefore, multivariate tests are reported (ɛ = .73).

2. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity has been violated, χ² (14) = 123.41, p = .000; therefore, multivariate tests are reported (ɛ = .54).

Additional information

Funding

This research has been financially supported by the German Pension Fund: [Grant Number 8011-106-31/31.107].