Mental Health at Work: Misconceptions and Missed Opportunities

0Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In 1942, the Medical Research Council’s Industrial Health Research Board initiated an investigation, led by Dr Russell Fraser and Dr Elizabeth Bunbury, into neurotic illness as a cause of absence from work. Prompted by concerns about industrial efficiency during wartime, the research focused on light and medium engineering industries from Birmingham and Greater London and attempted to gauge the ‘true incidence’ of the condition and ‘its effects on production’.1 Their study of 3,000 workers found that 9.1 per cent of male workers and 13 per cent of female workers had suffered from what was described as ‘definite’ neurosis.2 The number of male cases uncovered in this study was significantly higher than those that were to emerge later in studies during the 1950s and 1960s from general practice, which broadly suggested a female to male ratio of 2:1. Once again, a familiar feature of this study was that greater numbers of men were diagnosed with what Fraser described as ‘disabling psychosomatic symptoms’ (3.5 per cent of men and 2.1 per cent of women). When the figures are taken together, it would appear that psychological and psychosomatic illness was a significant problem for men as well as women.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Haggett, A. (2015). Mental Health at Work: Misconceptions and Missed Opportunities. In Mental Health in Historical Perspective (pp. 57–81). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137448880_3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free