Disclosure dilemmas: how people with a mental health condition perceive and manage disclosure at work
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Little research has explored the process of disclosure decision-making from antecedents to outcomes. This paper presents a model of decision-making about disclosure of a mental health condition to the immediate supervisor in the workplace shortly after starting a new job. A qualitative descriptive design was employed to explore participants’ experiences of the disclosure decision-making process, the disclosure event itself (if applicable), and their perceptions of the impact of the decision on personal, interpersonal, and organizational outcomes. The transcripts were coded and analyzed using directed content analysis. Twenty-eight participants were purposively selected to represent different disclosure decisions, sex, diagnoses, and maintenance of employment. Analysis identified goals and conditions/context were important antecedents for the disclosure decision. All participants discussed concerns about prejudice and discrimination if they disclosed, and, for those who chose to disclose, high stress and anxiety were described during the disclosure event; however, supervisor reactions were generally described as positive. Regardless of the disclosure strategy adopted, participants reported that their disclosure decision helped to support their self-acceptance and recovery. For those who disclosed, most perceived a positive response by their supervisor. However, the pervasive concerns of prejudice indicate there is still much work to be done.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONDecision-making about disclosure of a mental health condition to the immediate supervisor in the workplace is a complex process.Disclosure goals, the relationship with the supervisor and the workplace context are important antecedents to the disclosure decision.Careful consideration should be given to the planning of disclosure, particularly related to what information will be shared, how it will be shared, and an appropriate level of emotional content to enhance the likelihood of a positive response from the supervisor.Disclosure planning should take the supervisor’s style and organizational norms into account. Decision-making about disclosure of a mental health condition to the immediate supervisor in the workplace is a complex process. Disclosure goals, the relationship with the supervisor and the workplace context are important antecedents to the disclosure decision. Careful consideration should be given to the planning of disclosure, particularly related to what information will be shared, how it will be shared, and an appropriate level of emotional content to enhance the likelihood of a positive response from the supervisor. Disclosure planning should take the supervisor’s style and organizational norms into account.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».