Work stress and absence due to mental health

Work stress and absence due to mental health often arise from a pattern of rising load and declining recovery. If we recognise those patterns early together, at individual level, in teams and for the whole organisation, we can pursue real improvement instead of only limiting the damage after someone has dropped out.

One model is not enough

The JD-R model (Job Demands–Resources) is a widely used model to explain work stress. It distinguishes job demands that cost energy, such as workload, emotional strain, ambiguity or social unsafety, and resources that protect and give energy, such as autonomy, support, clear priorities and predictability. The model makes work stress open to discussion and manageable: which factors structurally demand too much, and which resources are missing?

The limitation of the classic JD-R model is that it mainly looks at the work system and less at someone’s personal life and context. Yet in practice, absence due to mental health often arises from accumulation: lack of sleep, informal caregiving, financial stress, physical complaints, mental vulnerability or limited capacity to recover. That context determines how big someone’s “buffer” is. As a result, the same workload can be bearable for one person and just too much for another.

Healthguard uses JD-R as a basic structure, but makes the model more practical by explicitly including a third domain: the person and their context.
That is why Healthguard combines JD-R with measurements from Positieve Gezondheid (Positive Health). Positive Health looks more broadly at functioning, health and resilience, not only at complaints. Combining the two gives a complete picture: what does the work demand, what does the work give, and how is someone doing in terms of health, recovery and daily functioning. This prevents you from heading in one direction too quickly. For example, only coaching while work factors remain unhealthy, or only adjusting workload while recovery and context are the bottleneck.

What this delivers is a three-part diagnosis that gives direction faster:

1. Work stressors (JD-R demands)
   Which work factors drain energy or create risk?
2. Energy sources (JD-R resources)
   Which work factors protect, give control or increase capacity?
3. Personal state and context (Positive Health)
   What are someone’s capacity to recover, health, daily functioning and load from their context really like right now?

This combination prevents two classic mistakes:

• Only intervening on the person (coaching) while the work structure remains unhealthy.
• Only adjusting work factors while someone’s recovery, sleep or load from their context is the bottleneck.

What does that mean for the approach in practice?

Healthguard translates this into a simple, workable logic:

First, get a sharp view of where the risk comes from.

Not “work stress” in general, but: which demands dominate, which resources are missing, and how is someone doing in terms of recovery and functioning?

Then choose interventions that fit the cause.

If the problem lies mainly in the demands (for example role conflict, unrealistic deadlines, social unsafety), the plan should mainly focus on the work: prioritising, clear agreements, leadership interventions, team dynamics, redesign of tasks. If the limiting factor lies mainly in the personal state and context (sleep, chronic stress outside work, capacity to recover), the emphasis is more on recovery and guidance, without ignoring work factors.

Finally, embed it in rhythm and follow-up.

Not one conversation and done, but a short cycle of measure, adjust, embed. Especially with absence due to mental health, this prevents relapse and makes the approach scalable.

Why this approach works for absence due to mental health

Absence due to mental health rarely has a single cause. A model that only sees “work” or only “the person” often comes too late or chooses the wrong intervention. By combining JD-R with Positive Health, you get a fuller picture of both risk and recovery potential. That makes it easier to detect early, act in a more targeted way and keep the conversation human, without medicalising and without moralising.

This is how prevention becomes concrete: making patterns visible, intervening on the real causes in a targeted way, and following up until behaviour, working agreements and recovery are stable again.