Cited by 49Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsWorkplace Health and Well-being

Acceptance and barriers to access of occupational e-mental health: cross-sectional findings from a health-risk population of employees

Hennemann, Severin, Witthöft, Michael, Bethge, Matthias, Spanier, Katja, Beutel, Manfred E., Zwerenz, Rüdiger·2018·International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health

Abstract

Purpose Occupational e-mental-health (OEMH) may extend existing instruments for preservation or restoration of health and work ability. As a key precondition to efficient implementation, this study examined acceptance and person-centered barriers to potential uptake of OEMH for work-related distress in employees with an elevated risk of early retirement.Methods Within the framework of the "Third German Sociomedical Panel of Employees", 1829 employees with prior sickness absence payments filled out a self-administered questionnaire. Participants had a mean age of 49.93 years (SD = 4.06). 6.2% indicated prior use of eHealth interventions. Potential predictors of acceptance of OEMH were examined based on the "Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology" (UTAUT) extended by work ability, mental health, eHealth literacy and demographic characteristics.Results 89.1% (n = 1579) showed low to moderate acceptance (M = 2.20, SD = 1.05, range 1-5). A path analysis revealed significant, positive direct effects of UTAUT predictors on acceptance (performance expectancy: 0.48, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001; effort expectancy: 0.20, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001; social influence: 0.28, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001).Online time and frequency of online health information search were further positive direct predictors of acceptance. Model fit was good [χ 2(7) = 12.91, p = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.02, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 0.99, SRMR = 0.01].Conclusions Attitudes towards OEMH are rather disadvantageous in the studied risk group. Implementation of OEMH, therefore, requires a-priori education including promotion of awareness, favorable attitudes regarding efficacy and usability in a collaborative approach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00420-017-1280-5

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies and interventions often included more than one focus of mental illness, used various treatment techniques, and assessed the acceptability of general web-based mental health interventions.

    “Studies and interventions often included more than one focus of mental illness, used various treatment techniques, and assessed the acceptability of general web-based mental health interventions [34,45,46].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hennemann, S., Witthöft, M., Bethge, M., Spanier, K., Beutel, M. E., & Zwerenz, R.
Affiliations
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • University of Lübeck (DE)
Corresponding author
Hennemann, Severin
Venue
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
Published
2017-11-30
Volume
91
Issue
3
Pages
305-316
ISSN
  • 0340-0131 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1246
OpenAlex
W2771849147
Cited by
49
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
German Pension Insurance Fund
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
technology acceptance, UTAUT, access barriers, work-related distress, digital health literacy, work ability, sick leave, online health information seeking, employee mental health
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Occupational Medicine, Surveys and Questionnaires, Telemedicine, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review