Search

Abstract Background Asthma self-management (e.g., trigger avoidance or correct medication use) is a cornerstone of therapy. Its successful implementation in everyday working life is determined by psychosocial working conditions, in particular by support from superiors and colleagues and the job decision latitude (i.e., when and how to carry out which tasks). To empower individuals with asthma to modify their working conditions, employees need to use certain communication skills and acquire specific knowledge. Both could be taught as part of patient education during pulmonary rehabilitation. Therefore, the aim of the planned study is the development and multicentre implementation of an education module for individuals with asthma during their rehabilitation and to generate evidence on its effectiveness. Methods Participants (n ≥ 180) will be recruited, randomized into an intervention and a control group, trained and surveyed in two rehabilitation clinics. The intervention group will receive the supplementary patient education module “Asthma and Work” while the control group will participate in a program on " Eating behaviour” (both 2 × 50 min). The effectiveness of the intervention will be examined based on pre-post measurements (T1 and T2) and a 3-month follow-up (T3). We will consider behavioural intention (T2) and asthma self-management at work (T3) as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include self-management-related knowledge, self-efficacy, number of sick days, number of exacerbations, asthma control (Asthma Control Test), asthma-related quality of life (Marks Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), and subjective employment prognosis (Brief Scale Measuring the Subjective Prognosis of Gainful Employment). The pre-post comparisons are to be evaluated using univariate analyses of covariance. Discussion Improving asthma self-management at work could increase the work ability and social participation of employees with asthma. This could reduce costs, e.g. in terms of asthma-related sick leave. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00031843)

Background: There are indications of associations between the ability to mentalize and psychological defense mechanisms. However, only a few studies have focused on these associations, and even fewer have included empirical analyses. In the present study, we aimed to fill this research gap by analyzing the link between the ability to mentalize and psychological defense mechanisms in patients with mental disorders. We examined whether changes in defense mechanisms are predicted by an increase in mentalization or whether such changes are only related to reductions in psychopathology and interpersonal problems.Methods: A clinical sample of N = 89 patients was studied during and after inpatient psychiatric rehabilitation. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were performed to determine changes in mentalization, psychological defense, psychopathology, and interpersonal problems over the course of therapy and post-treatment. Linear regression analyses were used to predict the change in defense patterns based on an increase in mentalization.Results: Maladaptive defense mechanisms were significantly reduced during inpatient therapy and remained low until follow-up, whereas neurotic and adaptive defense mechanisms did not change significantly. The results of the regression analyses indicated that mentalization played an important role in the reduction in maladaptive defense during and after inpatient rehabilitation for mental disorders, whereas reductions in psychopathology and interpersonal distress were only partially associated with a reduction in maladaptive defense.Conclusion: We conclude that mentalization is vital for reducing maladaptive defense mechanisms, which are commonly associated with mental disorders. In therapy, an increase in patients' capacity to mentalize may be a practicable approach to diminish maladaptive defense mechanisms.

Knowledge transfer from universities to other portions of society is highly relevant in both academia and public policy. However, the focus on high-quality research outputs has forced researchers to concentrate their efforts mainly on “science-to-science” achievements. Knowledge transfer activities are usually reduced to topics that are associated with university-industry collaboration or the exploitation of research results, such as procurement of patents. Achievements in fields characterized by “science-to-professionals” and “science-to-public” knowledge transfer are often not appreciated, but rather evaluated as extraordinary and voluntary contributions. Therefore, these are deemed as not beneficial for progression in academic careers. Furthermore, study of such aspects of knowledge transfer has rarely been conducted. While the reduction of knowledge transfer to profit-oriented indicators should in general be questioned, such an objective is particularly inappropriate in the social sciences and humanities (SSH). In the current study, we explored whether researchers themselves have a differentiated understanding of knowledge transfer and which attitudes toward knowledge transfer can be described. We also investigated motivators and obstacles associated with knowledge transfer itself. To analyze differences between the SSH and other scientific disciplines, we compared SSH researchers with those of other fields. Our sample consisted of 283 participants from 18 different Austrian universities. Results indicate that researchers possess a comprehensive understanding of knowledge transfer that is closely related to science-to-public and science-to-professionals disciplines, as well as university instruction. Importantly, issues regarding the exploitation of research results were questioned and motivators were linked to moral rather than economic issues. Within the scientific community, knowledge transfer is insufficiently appreciated and is not beneficial for progress in an academic career. As such, researchers are hindered in participating in knowledge transfer activities. Differences between SSH and non-SSH researchers were noted in several evaluated categories, but were mainly small in effect size. Both subsamples answered consistently along the same trend, indicating that the differences are smaller than we hypothesized. Our findings are critically discussed, and implications are extrapolated.