Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Reading Level
      Reading Level
      Clear All
      Reading Level
  • Content Type
      Content Type
      Clear All
      Content Type
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Item Type
    • Is Full-Text Available
    • Subject
    • Publisher
    • Source
    • Donor
    • Language
    • Place of Publication
    • Contributors
    • Location
9 result(s) for "Cantopher, Tim"
Sort by:
The curse of the strong
The high price overachievers pay for giving 110% in all aspects of their lives, particularly at work are often stress, depression and alcohol abuse. People in high-stress jobs run twice the risk of suffering serious depression or anxiety as those in lower-stress occupations. Time pressure ­ working to deadlines in an environment where failure is publicly visible ­ is one of the most important causes of stress. A key measure of job stress ­ lack of support from co-workers and supervisors ­ is also related to depression and can lead to alcohol abuse. The statistics for men and work stress are particularly shocking. One in three use alcohol to relieve work stress, while 17% have been to a doctor about stress levels and more than 25% suffer from exhaustion as a result of stress.
Trade Publication Article
Reforms turn GPs into the patients
If they try hard enough, they blow a fuse and get ill. That's where I come in. I'm fed up with this. I've seen too many of our best people sacrificed at the altar of our leaders' egos.
MELTDOWN IN PROGRESS
Work stress is now the most common reason for absenteeism in the workplace. The first step in dealing successfully with stress is to recognize the signs of strain. You should act on them by looking at any possible opportunity to pull back. You can achieve 98% of the output with 60% of the effort. The key is to find the 2% of output you can lose and the 40% fn input that is not necessary. Individuals need to take responsibility for protecting themselves, but employers also have a legal responsibility to protect employees from avoidable excessive stress. Employers should allow them time off if they do get ill and when someone has been off with a stress-related illness and goes back to work, make sure they begin on a supernumerary basis. Employees who feel valued and are informed as early as possible of decisions can absorb much more than those who feel marginalized and powerless. If an employee does complain about work stress, it is essential that they are listened to and that the source of their problem is addressed.
Trade Publication Article
Special report: Antidepressants: Analysis: For some, drugs are only first aid
It's part of our culture to take up polarised positions. Our political and legal systems are based on this premise and our media rely on it. The middle ground isn't interesting and is rarely aired. It is this environment in which the pros and cons dominate the literature on antidepressants. Meanwhile, sufferers from the depressive illness don't know which way to turn. The cons are equally selective. They point to meta-analyses showing that antidepressants don't out-perform placebo sufficiently to reach this arbitrary level of significance. They conclude that antidepressants don't work. This is the oldest misuse of statistics in the book. An insignificant difference doesn't mean that you've proven no difference; it just means that you haven't proved that there is one. Another issue is failing to exclude the outlier. As I've already pointed out, one expects occasional misleading results from research. A meta-analysis should deal with this problem by excluding from the analysis any study with results wildly different from all the others. The pros say this hasn't always happened in the cons' analyses, potentially producing misleadingly negative results.