Tag Archives: workplace

A systematic review of interventions to support adults with ADHD at work – Implications from the paucity of context-specific research for theory and practice.

 By Kirsty Lauder, Almuth McDowall & Harriet R Tenenbaum (2022)

Why is this topic important?

People with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or ADHDers, can face workplace challenges that need supporting. Identifying the best support for ADHDers is important because the workplace is somewhere many adults spend their lives!

What is the purpose of this article?
We wanted to know what the evidence is for effective support to see if there is any research about ADHD and the workplace. One way to find out the best forms of support is to evaluate all the published academic research on a topic using a research method called a systematic review.

We found 143 published studies that evaluated support or ‘interventions’ for adult ADHDers. We looked at what was similar and different across all the studies and wanted to know:

  • where the research was conducted;
  • who the research participants were;
  • what kinds of support were evaluated;
  • what kind of support was most effective;
  • what support is relevant to the workplace.

What personal or professional perspectives do the authors bring to this topic?
The authors either identify as neurodivergent and/or have experience of working with people who identify as neurodivergent.

What did the authors find?
1/3 of studies were conducted in North America. The others were from Europe or Asia.

  • Most of the research participants were outpatients of ADHD Clinics, which means they get supported after getting an ADHD diagnosis from a psychiatrist.
  • 61% of the 143 studies evaluated medication and whether it reduces the core ADHD symptoms: inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity.
  • The remaining 39% of studies evaluated psychosocial support (training, cognitive behavioural therapy- CBT) or a combination of both medication and psychosocial support.
  • Medication is effective at reducing the core symptoms in the short term.
  • Psychosocial support is effective in improving emotional and social challenges.
  • A closer look at each study revealed the important components of effective support to be:
    • an increased awareness of what ADHD is between the ADHDer and their support network.
    • a good relationship with the medical professional working with the ADHDer.
    • inclusion in group sessions with other ADHDers.
  • No studies were conducted in the workplace or related to the workplace.
  • Some of the skills training and coaching support focused on work-related challenges like time management and performance.

What do the authors recommend?
The authors recommend more research on what effective workplace support is for ADHDers. The more research there is, the easier it will be for practitioners to rely on an evidence-base for decision-making.

The existing research, mapped in this study, shows us which strategies are most effective for ADHDers:

  • A combination of medication and CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) or skills training/coaching.
  • Involving the ADHDer’s support network.
  • Learning about ADHD and its impact on individuals.
  • A good quality relationship with support professionals.

How will these recommendations help ADHDers now or in the future?
In the future, we can apply these ideas to the workplace to make sure that managers and co-workers are included in the awareness of and support for ADHD, and to ensure that the ADHDer has psychosocial and medical support available.

More information: 

Share

Physical workplace adjustments to support neurodivergent workers

This blog is a layperson summary of the paper Weber, C., Häne, E., Yarker, J., Krieger, B., & McDowall, A. (2022). Physical Workplace Adjustments to Support Neurodivergent Workers: A Systematic Review. Applied Psychology – An International Review.

Who are we?

We are a group of five researchers:

  • Clara is an environmental psychologist at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, where she researches how physical workplaces make people feel, think, and behave and reasons why.
  • Eunji is part of Clara’s team and is a workplace management researcher, who figures out how offices can be better managed.
  • Almuth and Jo are occupational psychologists at Birkbeck, University of London who research workplace health and diversity.
  • Beate is an occupational therapy researcher at Zurich University of Applied Science looking at making the work environment better for young people with autism.

What is neurodiversity and neurodivergence?

  • Neurodiversity means that humans are all different from each other with particular strengths and weaknesses. The different ways that humans feel, think and behave are associated with certain conditions;
  • Neurodivergence describes when someone’s brain learns or behaves differently from what is considered ‘typical’. Not everyone likes this word, but we use it because we looked at research carried out on people with certain conditions. We use the two words interchangeably here for this reason.

What did we do?

  • We looked at ‘physical workplace adjustments’ for neurodivergent workers. These adjustments are mostly ‘physical helpers’ that aim to make it more comfortable to work in an office.
    • For example, if bright light in the office is hard to tolerate, you might prefer a different artificial light that you can also control or choose to use sunglasses.
  • We wanted to know what research has been done, what physical helpers are used, and if they make a difference to people’s wellbeing;
  • We confirmed if studies were trustworthy and of good quality;
  • Finally, we confirmed where there are gaps in research.

We need this information to make recommendations and to guide future research.

Why did we do it?

  • Research shows that neurodivergent people are excluded from work. Many experience difficulties finding or remaining in work because workplaces do not easily accommodate different needs;
  • People who are neurodiverse often have unmet sensory needs in the workplace. This means that sounds, lights, the touch/feeling of things, or other people’s closeness can be too much. This can affect their health and work ability, with people commonly reporting headaches, feeling dizzy or sick;
  • We need to know how to make workplaces healthy and productive environments for neurodiverse workers and what types of physical helpers are best;
  • There is guidance from charities and advisory groups listing different physical helpers;
  • Workplace design companies also offer various creative physical helpers, but they don’t say if these actually work. Little is known about how these helpers are tried and tested.

What did we do specifically?

We did a systematic review of the research evidence. A systematic review follows very specific rules and steps in order to find studies and make sense of their findings. By using this method, we developed a picture of all the available research in a specific area;

We looked for any studies that considered at least one physical helper used in an office. We included studies if this helper had anything to do with:

  • how well people felt at work (health/well-being)
  • how well people were able to work (performance)
  • the extent to which people found it easier to stay in work (occupational longevity).

We searched academic literature and guidance documents from charities or advisory groups and:

  • found 319 studies connected with our research topic/question. Of these, only 20 studies mentioned our particular focus;
  • confirmed how trustworthy the results of the studies are. We rated the quality of their research design and reporting of information;
  • grouped all the physical helpers and their positive effects to see at a glance what types have what kind of effect.

What have we found out?

  • Few studies say anything concrete about links between these physical helpers and improved well-being, work ability or staying in a job;
  • Many studies are based on interviews asking people about experience, rather than testing over time to see if physical helpers make a difference;
  • No studies focused specifically on physical helpers. This means that studies only mentioned physical helpers if participants did so;
  • Some studies report general helpful office adjustments such as altering light or desk placement (if available);
  • No studies used strong, reliable research methods, meaning other researchers cannot test their findings by recreating them. Without robust studies, we cannot say anything about cause and effect;
  • So far, we can mostly say that study participants believed that some helpers contributed to a good experience but we have no evidence that they actually work.

Why is this important?

  • We urgently need more and better research;
  • Neurodivergent workers are likely to be better able to access helpers if there is evidence that shows they make a difference;
  • Organisations might be spending money on helpers which don’t help;
  • Charity and other guidelines should acknowledge the evidence base for the accommodations they recommend so that people are aware of the basis for this advice;
  • Developing a specification for return of investment would help researchers and organisations gather more data to inform our understanding of what works, for whom and when.

Further Information

Share

Public Engagement Awards: Dr Sophie Hope and Jenny Richards – Manual Labours: The Building as Body

This is the fourth in a series of blogs showcasing the Birkbeck 2020 Public Engagement Awards winners and highly commended participants. This project was announced the winner of the category ‘Engaged Practice’.

Manual Labours: The Building as Body is part of the long-term project Manual Labours, which explores physical and emotional relationships to work. This particular iteration took the Nottingham Contemporary as a case study and focused on the ‘(un)complaining body’ in relation to the architecture of the workplace. Research questions included:
– How do aspects of the building (storage, lighting, air, access routes) make staff feel?
– Where is the building hurting, blocked-up, suffering, sore, seeping, neglected?
– What impact does a complaining building have on a complaining body?

Since 2013, Dr Hope and Ms Richards (Independent Artist, Curator, Researcher, Partner of the Manual Labours Project) have been exploring physical and emotional relationships to work by carrying out workshops and interviews with different workforces (including cultural workers, commuters, call centre workers and complaints workers). For this phase of the research, they were invited by workers in a public cultural organisation to deliver a workshop on working conditions. At their request, they returned to work with them over a period of two years, responding to their needs to explore their workplace in a critical way. This was an iterative process where the research was driven by the content of the workshops. This collective investigations of the building became a useful reflexive and supportive space for staff to share their experiences and identify aspects of the organisation that they wanted to change. Thus, the project provided an experimental, well-needed space to reflect on the experience of work from different perspectives. The workshop format allowed people to meet from across the organisation and share experiences of their workplace, fostering conversations that otherwise were difficult to have. One of the creative outcomes of this project, the Manual and Wandering Womb Mobile Staffroom/Kitchen remain in use by the staff, and is so popular that it has its own booking system.

Dr Hope and Ms Richards’s work with the staff of the Nottingham Contemporary has also led to practical improvements to their shared kitchen, the refurbishment of the existing small staff room for invigilators and the reformatting of the open plan office. While these were cosmetic rather than structural changes they have led to improved staff communication and wellbeing. The presentation of the Health Assessment to the Board led to staff health and wellbeing becoming a standing item on the Board’s agenda. It has also been reported that there has been a changing attitude to having embedded practice-based researchers in the organisation as this was a first for the staff, demonstrating a new way of working with artist-researchers that can be taken into future work.

Birkbeck warmly congratulates Dr Hope, Jenny Richards, and the Nottingham Contemporary on their outstanding project, which was chosen as the winner in the category ‘Engaged Practice’.

Further information:

Share

Bring in Your Parents Day: an inclusive alternative to boost employee engagement

Research by Dr Alexandra Beauregard from the Department of Organizational Psychology explores the impact of LinkedIn’s employee engagement initiative.

A child walking with her parents.

Employee-sponsored family-friendly events are designed to boost engagement and encourage retention by building family members’ identification with the organization. However, longstanding traditions such as ‘Bring Your Children to Work’ days inadvertently exclude employees without caregiving responsibilities for children.

That’s where ‘Bring in Your Parents’ (BIYP) comes in. Launched by LinkedIn in 2013, the initiative targets a segment of the workforce not usually included in family-friendly initiatives: employees from the ‘Generation Y’, ‘Millennial’ or ‘Generation Z’ generations, born after 1981. After internal conversations at LinkedIn revealed that employees struggled to explain the nature of their work to parents who were not familiar with social media, LinkedIn introduced BIYP as a means of improving older parents’ understanding of their children’s jobs.

Together with Dr Karin King at LSE, I conducted a study to evaluate the impact of BIYP on the attitudes and behavioural intentions of employees and their parents. We surveyed participating employees and their parents in six organisations in six countries, followed by in-person interviews with participating employees and phone interviews with HR managers.

Following participation in BIYP, there were statistically significant increases in employee engagement and perceived problem-solving ability. By bringing parents to the workplace and having them learn about the nature of one’s job responsibilities, employees’ enthusiasm and sense of vitality on the job were renewed. Employees also felt that their employer appreciated them and their contribution to the organization’s goals.

BIYP also improved parental understanding of their child’s job. While the new, non-traditional jobs performed by their children seemed intangible to many parents prior to participating in BIYP, they now make more sense. Employees reported that having their parents better understand their work responsibilities and pace of work enabled parents to offer more frequent and appropriate support. This was especially important for young employees who, due to the high cost of housing in some metropolitan areas, still live with their parents and see them every day after work.

Furthermore, following parents’ participation in BIYP, there were significant increases in identification with their children’s organizations and of willingness to promote their children’s organization to outsiders. Parents became brand advocates among their own peer groups and even encouraged their children to stay with the firm for longer.

By incorporating events such as BIYP into existing family-friendly events, organizations can express their support for the work-family balance of all employees, rather than just those with caregiving responsibilities for children. Participation was shown to benefit all involved: employees, their parents or other family guests, and the organization for whom they work. The development of further initiatives that support employers in demonstrating inclusion, deepening employee engagement and widening organizational engagement with a range of stakeholders beyond the employee would be a welcome next step.

The citation for this study is: Beauregard, T. A., & King, K. A. (2019). “Bring in Your Parents Day”: Building inclusion and engagement through a cross-generational family-friendly workplace initiative. Strategic HR Review, (19)1, 15-21.

Further Information:

Share