Psychology of Stress 386 class

Psychology of Stress 386 class

historical psychosocial intervention for work related stress

answer Week 3 question 2 for my Psychology of Stress 386 class

Week 3 – Question 2:c
Discuss one historical psychosocial intervention for work related stress. Compare that to recent research that is evidence based for reducing workplace stress. Please use credible sources to support your work.
You are required to use at least one credible source to support your work as per the syllabus for each discussion question. Please expand your work to three to four substantial paragraphs. To cite in APA style, it should look like this: (Author last name, year). Your citations and references must match. List your full reference at the end of the post in APA style. Use APA peer reviewed journal articles from the last 3-5 years to support your work and demonstrate best practices.
Chapter 27: Organizational Stress
Joseph J.Hurrell, Jr.
During the past 50 years, understanding of the causes of work-related illnesses and
injuries has grown dramatically (Rom, 1998). In contrast, however, knowledge of how
to utilize this understanding for prevention and intervention purposes remains limited
(Schulte, Goldenhar, & Connally, 1996). This situation is especially troublesome when
one considers not only the human toll of work-related illnesses and injuries but the
massive drain on national economies that results from them. As mentioned over 30
years ago in Work in America (1973), a seminal report to the U.S. secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare, work represents an institutional tool that could be effectively
used to improve the health of workers and thereby reduce the staggering costs of health
Nowhere in the field of occupational health is the gap between etiologic and
intervention-related knowledge greater than in the realm of organizational (often
called occupational or job) stress. Despite the ever burgeoning literature on the
nature, causes, and physical and psychological consequences of organizational
stress, surprisingly little is known regarding organizational stress intervention. The
consequences of this gap may well be reflected in estimates of the enormous costs of
stress to the U.S. economy, which have been estimated to be as high as $300 billion
annually (American Institute of Stress, 2002).
Before discussing approaches to organizational stress intervention, it is important to
have a common understanding of the organizational stress and the intervention-related
terminology used in this chapter. Although various theoretical models of stress can
be found in the job stress literature, nearly everyone would agree that “something”
called organizational (job or occupational) stress results from an interaction between
University of Maryland Univers
©2005 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. SAGE knowledge
Page 4 of 34 Handbook of Work Stress: Organizational Stress
workers and the conditions of work (often called job stressors) to which they are
exposed. Views differ, however, regarding the importance of worker characteristics
versus working conditions as the major cause of organizational stress, and [p. 624
? ] these viewpoints have in part led to the development and use of distinctly different
intervention approaches for occupational stress. The approaches can be characterized
using a public health prevention terminology as primary, secondary, and tertiary
intervention (Hurrell & Murphy, 1996). The aim of primary prevention intervention is to
reduce the risk factors or job stressors; the aim of secondary prevention intervention
(often termed stress management) is to alter the ways that individuals respond to
risks or job stressors; and finally, the aim of tertiary prevention intervention is to
heal those who have been traumatized (Quick, Quick, Nelson, & Hurrell, 1997). As
secondary organizational stress prevention has been the subject of extensive reviews
(see, e.g., Murphy, 1988, 1996; van der Hek & Plomp, 1997) and is discussed in this
handbook, it will not be considered here. Rather, this chapter will attempt to provide
an understanding of the less scrutinized primary and tertiary organizational stress
prevention intervention literature.
Primary Prevention Intervention
A major challenge to understanding and drawing conclusions from the job stress
intervention literature in general involves the diverse and at times confusing terminology
used by investigators and reviewers to characterize job stress interventions. For
example, several recent review articles (van der Klink, Blonk, Schene, & van Dijk,
2001; and Reynolds, 2000) have compared the efficacy of various types of individual
occupational stress interventions (secondary and in some cases tertiary intervention
efforts) relative to organizational level and organizational-focused interventions. Their
conclusions suggest that the effects on employee well-being of the latter type are
insignificant or ineffective. Unfortunately, these reviews include only a small number of
primary prevention studies and categorize a variety of different types of interventions
under the rubric of “organizational.” As a result, they draw conclusions that may be
far too general in nature. Indeed, it is somewhat distressing that such conclusions are
reported in journals targeted to public health practitioners who upon reading them may
be tempted to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.” Although primary prevention

Follow this link to get a similar paper written from scratch