Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOI: 10.1111/sjop.12020
Kahonen, K., Naatanen, P., Tolvanen, A. & Salmela-Aro, K. (2012). Development of sense of coherence during two group interventions. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology 53, 523527.
Burnout is a serious occupational hazard. This study investigated the possibility to develop an effective salutogenic group intervention among employees
suffering from severe burnout symptoms. Participants consisted of employees aged 31 to 59 years working in different public service occupations, such as
police officers, tax officers, (and other public service officers), and assigned to three different groups: analytic (N = 25), psychodramatic (N = 24) and
controls (N = 28). The intervention comprised 16 separate days over a nine-month period. Changes in sense of coherence (SOC) were measured four times
with the 13-item Orientation to Life Questionnaire during the intervention and at six-month follow-up, and analyzed by general linear model (GLM) and
using Cohens d to estimate effect sizes. Change in SOC between the three groups was statistically significant (F(4,148) = 2.65, p = 0.036). The
psychodrama group showed a higher increase in SOC than the analytic group during the intervention, while the improvement in the analytic group was
significant during the six-month follow-up. Total effect size from baseline to follow-up was in the analytic group 0.71, in the psychodrama group 0.47, and
in the control group from baseline to end of intervention 0.09. The results show that it is possible to improve SOC by group intervention in the
occupational healthcare context. The dialogue-based analytic method and action-based psychodramatic method differ in their specific effects.
Key words: SOC, sense of coherence, group intervention, group psychotherapy, group analysis, psychodrama, occupational healthcare, burnout, stress,
salutogenesis.
Kari Kahonen, University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Psychology and Reflekta Ltd., Raakkatie 47, Iittala 14500, Finland.
E-mail: kari.kahonen@reflekta.fi
INTRODUCTION
Burnout is a chronic stress syndrome which develops gradually as
a consequence of a prolonged stress situation. It is a serious threat
for both individual employees and the public sector economy in
Finland (Ahola, Honkonen, Isometsa et al., 2006). In this study
we tried to develop a salutogenic group intervention to reduce the
risk for burnout. Feldt, Kinnunen and Mauno (2000) showed in
their study the major role of a good organizational climate for
enhancing sense of coherence (SOC), and consequently wellbeing. We wanted to know if it is possible to enhance SOC irrespective of organizational climate. We would then have two main
strategies to tackle the threat of burnout in the occupational
healthcare context, both on the individual and organizational
levels. SOC was selected as an indicator of effect because of its
positive correlations with well-being and health (see later). A salutogenic approach can also be seen as more positive than a pathogenic approach. In this study we compare and contrast the
positive effects on SOC of two types of group interventions.
Antonovsky (1987) argued that good health is not simply the
absence of pathology, but that the presence of positive, protective
factors is essential to promote good health. Antonovsky developed
a theory and a research perspective that he called salutogenesis
(Antonovsky, 1987). Rather than seeking the mechanisms underlying illness (pathogenesis), he tried to identify the origin of
health (salutogenesis) (Antonovsky, 1979, 1987). The salutogenic
model is based on the premise that stress and difficulties are integral elements of human existence. Korotkov (1998) stated that
everyone is under an imminent heightened pressure toward
entropy or chaos caused by various external and internal bodily
ideal for enhancing both the perceptual and the behavioral mechanism. In a group with nine other people who also have a rich
experience of working life, the individual has the opportunity to
learn to see difficulties in a more constructive and coherent way.
Such a group can also generate more flexible and creative
solutions on how best to behave in critical situations.
METHOD
Participants
Three different groups were formed with a total of 94 participants. The
criterion for inclusion was suffering from severe burnout symptoms, as
measured by the Bergen Burnout Inventory (Matthiesen, 1992). In the
first phase, 62 subjects suffering from severe burnout were randomly
selected into eight intervention groups (four group analytic and four
psychodrama). In the second phase, 32 subjects were selected for the
control group. They were able to consult an occupational physician and
a psychologist if needed, and they had a possibility to participate in the
same kind of intervention after this trial. Two phases were used as it was
deemed unethical to leave participants suffering from severe burnout to
be kept waiting for therapy to begin. All the participants were recruited
via their occupational healthcare service in the Helsinki area between
August 1998 and January 2000. The intervention groups consisted of
employees aged 33 to 59 years (Mean = 48, 73% women, 27% men)
working in different public service occupations such as police officers
and tax officers. Ages in the control group ranged between 31 and
58 years (mean = 47, women 78%, men 22%).
The subjects were randomly selected for the therapy groups as follows: (1) men, who were in the minority, were selected first, followed
by; (2) people working in the same organization; and then (3) the rest.
Thus, an equal distribution of men and the avoidance of confidentiality
problems among people in the same organizations were guaranteed.
Intervention
The interventions consisted of 16 separate days with an interval of two
weeks between each, and with four sessions on each day of one and half
hours each with one-hour lunch break and two half-hour coffee breaks.
The process began in March and ended in December, with summer break
of eight weeks in July and August. The follow-up day took place six
months later in June. The follow-up day followed the same timetable as
the intervention days. The group analytic groups were coordinated by a
female and a male analyst; both were physicians and group analysts. The
psychodrama groups had two female coordinators one of whom was a
psychologist and the other a physiotherapist. All coordinators were middle-aged and had many years experience in occupational health care and
coordinating groups.
A common issue in both group methods was to investigate the balance
between work, social life (including family life) and personal hobbies. In
terms of general resistance resources, these three basic dimensions support each other, meaning that if someone faces serious conflicts in his
occupational domain, a functional social life and important personal hobbies may be enough to prevent burnout. Another common issue was to
investigate participants personal values, beliefs, attitudes and patterns of
behavior, especially those exposing to conflicts in their work. This connects both the perceptual and behavioral mechanisms of SOC (Amirkhan
and Greaves, 2003).
The group analytic method (Foulkes & Anthony, 1990) was based on
free floating discussion. In the beginning it is important to build a safe
and familiar atmosphere in which every group member can express his
or her personal thinking. The first goal is on the collective level in group
analysis, and it is successfully reached when a group member feels that
this is my group, I want to be and I am part of it. The second goal is
on the projective level, and concerns the expression of the feelings and
ideas awakened in the group, the reasons for these feelings being solely
outside the world (one-way reason-result relation). At this level there is
nothing much to do because the reasons are outside. The third goal is on
the level of transference, where the group member becomes conscious of
his or her own subjective inner world, its continuing development in the
complex relationship between past history and the present. The world
becomes more open and relational, and more hope and possibilities to
adapt are evoked. Typically, a group analytic therapy process comprises
one or two sessions a week over three years, hence this intervention was
markedly less intensive and shorter (than the average).
The psychodrama method was based on many different kinds of
psychodramatic techniques (Blatner, 1996). In the beginning, cards and
figures were used to help the group members express their feelings and
idea. After this warm-up various socio- and psychodramatic techniques
were used. Drawing, music and writing were used to investigate and
express the group members inner worlds. Muscle relaxation and
exercises using the imagination were used in the last session of the day.
During the intervention, every participant had the possibility to be the
protagonist of the day, that is, to use the whole group and coordinators
to investigate through psychodrama something of crucial importance to
him/herself.
The role of the coordinators differed in these two methods. In the psychodrama groups they sought to advance the group work by giving more
direction, and being generally active and helpful, while in the analytic
groups they were more passive and less supportive. The group analytic
525
Measurements
To measure sense of coherence, the 13-item Orientation to Life Questionnaire (Antonovsky, 1987) was completed by the participants before the
beginning of therapy, in the middle of the therapy (in the summer break)
and at the end of therapy. Two intervention groups completed the same
scale once more the follow-up day six months post intervention.
This scale consists of three dimensions. Comprehensibility (five questions): Has it happened in the past that you were surprised by the
behavior of people whom you thought you knew well, Manageability
(four questions): Has it happened that people whom you counted on
disappointed you? and Meaningfulness (four questions): Do you have
the feeling that you dont really care about what goes on around you?
The participants were asked to answer the questions on a seven-point
semantic differential scale with two anchoring phrases (e.g., 1 = never
and 7 = always). After reversing the scores of the five negatively
worded items, the total sum score ranged from 13 (low SOC) to 91 (high
SOC). At the baseline, the Cronbachs a for the SOC scale was 0.90, at
the second measurement (middle) 0.85, at the third (end) 0.81 and at the
fourth (follow up) 0.83. The SOC-13 measure has relatively high structural validity and high stability (Feldt, Leskinen, Kinnunen & Ruoppila,
2003), and a high level of reliability and content, face and construct
validity (Antonovsky, 1993, Callahan & Pincus, 1995).
Statistical analyses
In the first research question, in which the level and development of
SOC across three measurements between two intervention groups and
one control group were compared, the general linear model (in this study
GLM always refers to the multivariate approach to repeated measures
ANOVA) was used. The analysis was continued with pairwise comparison using GLM to explore which of the groups differ in change across
the three measurements. Differences are further tested using repeated
contrast to show whether the differences in change are detected between
the first and second measurements or between the second and third measurements. Finally, GLM was used to analyze whether the change in the
mean score of SOC of the group analytic group and the psychodrama
group was different between the end of the intervention and the followup six-months later. Cohens d was used to estimate the effect size of
the change in SOC (the difference between two means divided by a
pooled standard deviation at baseline).
RESULTS
The means and standard deviations of SOC measured three times
for the group analytic, psychodrama and control groups are shown
in Table 1. The GLM analyses show, that the change in SOC,
measured three times during the nine-month group psychotherapy
intervention (at the beginning, middle and end), between the three
groups was statistically significant (F(4,148) = 2.65, p = 0.036).
Pairwise group comparisons revealed, that the change across the
three measurements differed between the psychodrama and control groups (F(2,49) = 4.03, p = 0.024), the psychodrama group
showing a significantly better improvement in SOC (mean from
3.81 to 4.33, effect size 0.67; see Table 1) between the second
and third measurements (F(1,50) = 7.78, p = 0.007). A significant
change across the three measurements was also observed between
the group analytic and psychodrama groups (F(2,46) = 3.00, onetailed p = 0.030), with the psychodrama group showing
SD
Effect size
0.73
0.90
0.62
0.80
0.19
0.17b
0.35c
0.71d
Psychodrama (N = 24)
baseline
3.91
middle
3.81
end
4.33
follow-up
4.27
0.64
0.59
0.78
0.76
0.13
0.67b
-0.08c
0.45d
Control (N = 28)
baseline
middle
end
0.94
0.89
0.88
0.10
0.19b
0.09e
3.91
3.83
3.98
DISCUSSION
The study supported our hypothesis (H1) that it is possible to
improve SOC in an occupational healthcare context by means of a
group intervention. An improvement took place during the second
half of the nine-month intervention in the psychodrama group and
during the six-month follow-up in the analytic group, which supported our second hypothesis (H2). While these two different
intervention methods did not differ significantly in their total
effect between baseline and follow-up, their different positive
slopes are very interesting. As we hypothesized, the psychodramatic method resulted in a more rapid improvement than the
analytic method, while the analytic method had a long lasting
effect, which continued post intervention. The more active and
supportive role of the coordinators and use of various experimental techniques, such as drawing pictures, using postcards, music,
the imagination, socio- and psychodrama, and relaxation techniques, in the psychodrama group proved to enhance more rapid
development, although the effect was not found to be progressive
at follow-up. The analytic group got off to a slow start, which can
REFERENCES
Ahola, K., Honkonen, T., Isometsa, E., Kalimo, R., Nykyri, E., Koskinen, S., Aromaa, A. & Lonnqvist, J. (2006). Burnout in the general
population. Results from the Finnish Health 2000 Study. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41, 1117.
Amirkhan, J.H. & Greaves, H. (2003). Sense of coherence and stress:
The mechanics of a healthy disposition. Psychology and Health, 18,
3162.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress and coping. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unravelling the mystery of health. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of
coherence scale. Social Science and Medicine, 36, 725733.
Bias, E. S. (1998). Mediating the stress-outcome relationship in Alzheimers caregiving: The reciprocal influences of sense of coherence,
coping, and boundary ambiguity. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59, 3046.
Blatner, A. (1996). Acting-in: Practical applications of psychodramatic
method (3rd edn). New York: Springer.
Blomberg, J., Lazar, A. & Sandell, R. (2001). Long-term outcome of
long-term psychoanalytically oriented therapies: First findings of the
Stockholm outcome of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis study.
Psychotherapy Research, 11, 361382.
Bowman, B. J. (1996). Cross-cultural validation of Antonovskys
Sense of Coherence Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52,
547549.
Callahan, L. F. & Pincus, T. (1995). The sense of coherence scale in
patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care and Research, 8,
2835.
Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U. & Mauno, S. (2000). A mediational model of
sense of coherence in the work context: A one-year follow-up study.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21, 461476.
Feldt, T., Leskinen, E., Kinnunen, U. & Ruoppila, I. (2003). The stability
of sense of coherence: Comparing two age groups in a 5-year
follow-up study. Personality and Individual Differences, 28,
239257.
527