Advertisement

Levels of substance use and willingness to use the employee assistance program

  • G. Shawn ReynoldsEmail author
  • Wayne E. K. Lehman
Brief Reports

Abstract

Individuals with drinking and drug problems may become particularly reluctant to seek help. To remove barriers to services, more needs to be understood about factors that influence helpseeking decisions. It was hypothesized that certain social psychological influences (attitudes, group cohesion, trust in management) might buffer a reluctance to use services provided by an external Employee Assistance Program (EAP). A random sampling of municipal employees (n=793) completed anonymous questionnaires that assessed willingness to use the EAP, individual drinking and drug use, attitudes toward policy, work group cohesion, and trust in management. Data from the questionnaires were analyzed with multivariate regression analyses to examine the interacting effects of substance abuse and proposed moderators (gender, race, awareness of the EAP, perceptions of policy, cohesion) on willingness to use the EAP. The results demonstrated that although substance abusers were less willing to use the EAP than were nonusers, substance abusers who were aware of the EAP, who had favorable attitudes toward policy, and who did not tolerate coworker substance abuse were as willing to use the EAP as were nonusers. The results also showed that employees with greater awareness of the EAP, support for policy, and perceptions of work group cohesion reported significantly greater willingness to use the EAP than did employees with relatively less awareness of the EAP, policy support, and cohesion. Workplace prevention efforts that are designed to increase the use of EAP services should intentionally target the workplace environment and social context. Creating the awareness and favorability of the EAP, policy, and work group cohesion might buffer substance abusers' reluctance to seek help.

Keywords

Substance Abuse Substance Abuser Multivariate Regression Analysis Favorable Attitude Policy Support 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kopstein A, Gfroerer J. Drug use patterns and demographics of employed drug users: Data from the 1988 NIDA household survey.National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series. 1991;2:11–24.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lehman WEK, Simpson DD. Employee substance use and on-the-job behaviors.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1992;77:309–321.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blum TC, Roman PM. Employee assistance programs and human resources management.Research in Personnel and Human Resources management. 1989;7:259–312.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cramer KM. Psychological antecedents to help-seeking behavior: A reanalysis using path modeling structures.Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1999;46:381–387.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delaney W, Grube JW, Ames GM. Predicting likelihood of seeking help through the employee assistance program among salaried and union hourly employees.Addiction. 1998;93:399–410.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McKirnan D. Community differences in conceptions of deviant behavior: An exploratory study of attitudes toward alcohol-related help sources.American Journal of Community Psychology. 1980;8:637–656.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Browne AC. Drug and alcohol abuse among employees: Critical issues.Employee Assistance Quarterly. 1986;2:11–22.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trice H, Roman P.Spirits and Demons at Work: Alcohol and Other Drugs on the Job. New York: Cornell University; 1978.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller AB. Employee utilization of addiction treatment.Employee Assistance Quarterly. 1990;5:13–31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taylor SE, Brown JD. Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health.Psychological Bulletin. 1988;103:198–210.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown LM. Ethnic stigma as a contextual experience: A possible selves perspective.Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin. 1998;24:163–172.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goffman E.Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1963.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bateson G. The cybernetics of “self”: A theory of alcoholism.Psychiatry. 1971;34:1–18.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris MM, Fennel ML. Perceptions of an employee assistance program and employees' willingness to participate.The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 1988;24:423–438.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schmid TL, Jeffery RW, Forster JL, et al. Public support for policy initiatives regulating alcohol use in Minnesota: A multi-community survey.Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1990;51:438–442.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bennett JB, Lehman WEK. From dual policy to dual attitudes: The social construction of substance use policy.Review of Public Personnel Management, 1997;17:58–83.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Azjen I, Fishbein M.Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc; 1980.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trice HM, Sonnenstuhl WJ. On the construction of drinking norms in work organizations.Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1990;51:201–220.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brawley LR, Carron AV, Widmeyer WN. Exploring the relationship between cohesion and group resistance to disruption.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 1988;10:199–213.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bennett JB, Lehman WEK. Workplace drinking climate, stress, and problem indicators: Assessing the influence of team work (group cohesion).Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1998;59:608–618.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yalom ID.The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books; 1975.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scheffler RM, Miller AB. Differences in mental health service utilization among ethnic subpopulations.International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 1991;14:363–376.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gerstein LH, Valutis W. Racial differences related to potential helpers' impressions of impaired workers.Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 1991;19:2–10.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gerstein LH, Moore DT, Duffy K, Dainas C. The effects of biological sex and ethnicity on EAP utilization and referrals.Consulting Psychology Journal. 1993;45:23–27.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lightner E, McConatha JT. Factors affecting supervisory referrals to employee assistance programs: The impact of race and gender.Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 1995;10:179–188.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burke RJ. Utilization of employees' assistance program in a public accounting firm: Some preliminary data.Psychological Reports. 1994;75:264–266.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coudriet TW, Swisher JD, Grissom G. The role of gender in requests for help in employee assistance programs.Employee Assistance Quarterly. 1987;2:1–12.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stinson FS, Williams GD, Bertolucci D, et al. Alcohol-related morbidity, 1979–1984.Alcohol Health and Research World. 1987;2:56–61.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Beckman LJ, Amaro H.Barriers to Treatment Among Anglo Women Alcoholics. Los Angeles, Calif: University of California Alcohol and Drug Research Center; 1983.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Milne SH, Blum TC. Roman PM. Factors influencing employees' propensity to use an employee assistance program.Personnel Psychology. 1994;47:123–145.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sonnenstuhl WJ, Trice HM.Strategies for Employee Assistance Programs: The Crucial Balance. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rouse BA, Kozel NJ, Richards LG.Self-Report Methods of Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges to Validity. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. (National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 57.)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Keppel G, Zedeck S.Data Analysis for Research Designs: Analysis of Variance and Multiple Regression/Correlation Approaches. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company; 1989.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW.Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications Inc; 1992.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Markus H, Nurius P. Possible selves.American Psychologist. 1986;41:954–969.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roman PM. Strategic considerations in designing interventions to deal with alcohol problems in the workplace. In: Roman PM, ed.Alcohol Problem Intervention in the Workplace: Employee Assistance Programs and Strategic Alternatives. NY: Quorum Books; 1990;371–406.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roback HB, Shelton M. Effects of confidentiality limitations on the psychotherapeutic process.Journal of Psychotherapy-Practice and Research. 1995;4:185–193.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wheeless L, Wheeless V, Dickson-Markman F. A research note: The relations among social and task perceptions in small groups.Small Group Behavior. 1982;13:373–384.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Research Assistant Institute of Behavioral ResearchTexas Christian UniversityFort Worth
  2. 2.Statistician, SHL USABoulder

Personalised recommendations