Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How Does a Decision Aid Help People Decide Whether to Disclose a Mental Health Problem to Employers? Qualitative Interview Study

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background Decisions about whether to disclose mental health problems to employers are complex, with potential personal, employment and legal implications. Decision aids are evidence based tools, designed to help individuals make specific choices between treatment options. We previously developed a decision aid—Conceal Or ReveAL (CORAL)—to assist service users with decisions about disclosure to employers. As part of a mixed methods exploratory RCT, which demonstrated that the CORAL decision aid was effective in reducing decisional conflict, we aimed to explore its mechanism of action and to optimise the intervention for a future full scale trial. Methods In depth interviews were conducted with individuals receiving vocational support from a mental health trust and participating in the intervention arm of the pilot trial. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify the main themes relating to participants’ perceptions of the CORAL decision aid. Results Thirteen participants were interviewed and five main themes were identified: sense of self and values; sense of control; anticipation of disclosure; experience of disclosure; and mechanism of action of the decision aid. Conclusions Data from our 13 participants suggest that the CORAL decision aid acts on several dimensions of decisional conflict: clarifying the pros and cons of different choices; increasing knowledge; structuring the decision making process; and clarifying needs and values. The current study indicated that it would be most effective when delivered by a professional well versed in employment and mental health matters such as a vocational adviser. The need for employers and policymakers to reduce the negative impact of disclosure is also highlighted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goldberg SG, Killeen MB, O’Day B. The disclosure conundrum: how people with psychiatric disabilities navigate employment. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2005;11(3):463–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jans LH, Kaye HS, Jones EC. Getting hired: successfully employed people with disabilities offer advice on disclosure, interviewing, and job search. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22:155–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wheat K, Brohan E, Henderson C, Thornicroft G. Mental illness and the workplace: conceal or reveal. J R Soc Med. 2010;103:83–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Granger B, Baron R, Robinson S. Findings from a national survey of job coaches and job developers about job accommodations arranged between employers and people with psychiatric disabilities. J Vocat Rehabil. 1997;9:235–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brohan E, Slade M, Wheat K, Henderson C, Malcolm E, Clement S, Barley E, Thornicroft G. A systematic review of beliefs, behaviours and influencing factors regarding disclosure of a mental health problem in the employment context. BMC Psychiatry 2012; 12(11). doi:10.1186/1471-244X-12-11.

  6. Lockwood G, Henderson C, Thornicroft G. The equality act 2010 and mental health. Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200(3):182–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pachankis JE. The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: a cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:328–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Smart L, Wagner DM. Covering up what can’t be seen: concealable stigma and mental control. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;77(3):474–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Connor A. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15:25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration. Background document. (http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS_Background.pdf). Accessed 17 July 2013.

  11. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; 10:1–335. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3.

  12. Brohan E, Henderson C, Slade M, Thornicroft G. Development and preliminary evaluation of a decision aid for disclosure of mental illness to employers. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(2):238–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001;40:471–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Medical Research Council. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance; 2008; http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC004871. Accessed 17 July 2013.

  16. Henderson C, Brohan E, Clement S, Williams P, Lassman F, Schauman O, Murray J, McCrone P, Murphy C, Slade S, Thornicroft G. Study protocol: decision aid to assist decisions on disclosure of mental health status to an employer: protocol for the CORAL exploratory randomised controlled trial CORAL trial protocol. BMC Psychiatry 2012; 12 (133).

  17. Henderson C, Brohan E, Clement S, Williams P, Lassman F, Schauman O, Dockery L, Farrelly S, Murray J, Murphy C, Slade M, Thornicroft G. Randomised controlled trial of a decision aid on disclosure of mental health status to an employer: feasibility and outcomes. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203:350–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rogers ES, Chamberlin J, Ellison ML, Crean T. A consumer-constructed scale to measure empowerment among users of mental health services. Psychiatric Serv. 1997;48(8):1042–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. O’Connor AM. User manual—Decisional Conflict Scale. Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute 1993; (www.ohri.ca/decisionaid). Accessed 17 July 2013.

  20. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18:59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Toth KE. Employee decision-making about disclosure of a mental disorder at work [Ph.D.]. Ann Arbor: Walden University; 2012.

  23. Waghorn G, Lewis S. Disclosure of psychiatric disabilities in vocational rehabilitation. Aust J Rehabil Couns. 2002;8:67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Waghorn G, Spowart CE. Managing personal information in supported employment for people with psychiatric disabilities. In: Lloyd C, editor. Vocational rehabilitation and mental health. New York: Wiley; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Henderson C, Williams P, Little K, Thornicroft G. Mental health problems in the workplace: changes in employers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices in England 2006-2010. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;202(suppl 55):s70–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This publication is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (Improving Mental Health Outcomes by Reducing Stigma and Discrimination: RP-PG-0606-1053). The views expressed in this presentation are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health. GT is also funded through a NIHR Specialist Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London and the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical standards

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Service and Population Research Department P029, David Goldberg Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK

    F. Lassman, R. Claire Henderson, L. Dockery, S. Clement, J. Murray, O. Bonnington, S. Farrelly & G. Thornicroft

Authors
  1. F. Lassman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Claire Henderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Dockery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Clement
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. O. Bonnington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S. Farrelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. G. Thornicroft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Claire Henderson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lassman, F., Henderson, R.C., Dockery, L. et al. How Does a Decision Aid Help People Decide Whether to Disclose a Mental Health Problem to Employers? Qualitative Interview Study. J Occup Rehabil 25, 403–411 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9550-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9550-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation