Trial reportPloS one2013
Effect of an E-mental health approach to workers' health surveillance versus control group on work functioning of hospital employees: a cluster-RCT.
Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Optimizing Workplace Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Addressing Health Care Workers' Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Interventions and Current Resources.American journal of public health · 2024Pooled it
- Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Trends in Effectiveness of Organizational eHealth Interventions in Addressing Employee Mental Health: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Digital Interventions for Screening and Treating Common Mental Disorders or Symptoms of Common Mental Illness in Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Preventing occupational stress in healthcare workers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Effects of a smartphone-based stress management program on work performance, sick leave, and intention to leave among nurses during COVID-19 in Vietnam and Thailand: an analysis of secondary outcomes of a randomized controlled trial.Journal of occupational health · 2025Trial
- The Feasibility of an App-Based Worksite Health Promotion Program to Improve Mental Well-Being and Work-Related Vitality in University Hospital Workers: Process and Preliminary Effect Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Article
- A risk communication intervention aimed at enhancing help-seeking behavior and reducing stress symptoms in healthcare workers: a pilot study with a process evaluation.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Article
- Effectiveness of tailored digital health interventions for mental health at the workplace: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.PLOS digital health · 2022Article
- Acceptability of Web-Based Mental Health Interventions in the Workplace: Systematic Review.JMIR mental health · 2022Review
- Group-tailored feedback on online mental health screening for university students: using cluster analysis.BMC primary care · 2022Observational
- Connected Mental Health: Systematic Mapping Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Review
- Interventions on reducing burnout in physicians and nurses: A systematic review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2019Article
- Effect of the National Stress Check Program on mental health among workers in Japan: A 1-year retrospective cohort study.Journal of occupational health · 2018Article
- Web-based interventions for the management of stress in the workplace: Focus, form, and efficacy.Journal of occupational health · 2017Review
- What is the purpose of the Stress Check Program?Journal of occupational health · 2016Article
- Predictive value and construct validity of the work functioning screener-healthcare (WFS-H).Journal of occupational health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate an e-mental health (EMH) approach to workers' health surveillance (WHS) targeting work functioning (WF) and mental health (MH) of healthcare professionals in a randomised controlled trial.
methodsNurses and allied health professionals (N = 1140) were cluster-randomised at ward level to the intervention (IG) or control group (CG). The intervention consisted of two parts: (a) online screening and personalised feedback on impaired WF and MH, followed by (b) a tailored offer of self-help EMH interventions. CG received none of these parts. Primary outcome was impaired WF (Nurses Work Functioning Questionnaire), assessed at baseline and after three and six months. Analyses were performed in the positively screened subgroup (i) and in all participants (ii).
resultsParticipation rate at baseline was 32% (NIG = 178; NCG = 188). Eighty-two percent screened positive for at least mild impairments in WF and/or MH (NIG = 139; NCG = 161). All IG-participants (N = 178) received part (a) of the intervention, nine participants (all positively screened, 6%) followed an EMH intervention to at least some extent. Regarding the subgroup of positively screened participants (i), both IG and CG improved over time regarding WF (non-significant between-group difference). After six months, 36% of positively screened IG-participants (18/50) had a relevant WF improvement compared to baseline, versus 28% (32/115) of positively screened CG-participants (non-significant difference). In the complete sample (ii), IG and CG improved over time but IG further improved between three and six months while CG did not (significant interaction effect).
conclusionsIn our study with a full compliance rate of 6% and substantial drop-out leading to a small and underpowered sample, we could not demonstrate that an EMH-approach to WHS is more effective to improve WF and MH than a control group. The effect found in the complete sample of participants is not easily interpreted. Reported results may be useful for future meta-analytic work.
trial registrationDutch Trial Register NTR2786.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.