Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35544305›Full record

ReviewJMIR mental health2022

Acceptability of Web-Based Mental Health Interventions in the Workplace: Systematic Review.

Johanna Scheutzow, Chris Attoe, Joshua Harwood

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Digital Wellness Programs in the Workplace: Meta-Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Johanna ScheutzowDepartment of Psychosis, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, School of Academic Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5281-7122
Chris AttoeDepartment of Psychosis, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, School of Academic Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5559-2697
Joshua HarwoodMaudsley Learning, South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6028-2965
King's College London · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based interventions have proven to be effective not only in clinical populations but also in the occupational setting. Recent studies conducted in the work environment have focused on the effectiveness of these interventions. However, the role of employees' acceptability of web-based interventions and programs has not yet enjoyed a similar level of attention.

objectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to conduct the first comprehensive study on employees' level of acceptability of web-based mental health interventions based on direct and indirect measures, outline the utility of different types of web-based interventions for work-related mental health issues, and build a research base in the field.

methodsThe search was conducted between October 2018 and July 2019 and allowed for any study design. The studies used either qualitative or quantitative data sources. The web-based interventions were generally aimed at supporting employees with their mental health issues. The study characteristics were outlined in a table as well as graded based on their quality using a traffic light schema. The level of acceptability was individually rated using commonly applied methods, including percentile quartiles ranging from low to very high.

resultsA total of 1303 studies were identified through multiple database searches and additional resources, from which 28 (2%) were rated as eligible for the synthesis. The results of employees' acceptability levels were mixed, and the studies were very heterogeneous in design, intervention characteristics, and population. Approximately 79% (22/28) of the studies outlined acceptability measures from high to very high, and 54% (15/28) of the studies reported acceptability levels from low to moderate (overlap when studies reported both quantitative and qualitative results). Qualitative studies also provided insights into barriers and preferences, including simple and tailored application tools as well as the preference for nonstigmatized language. However, there were multiple flaws in the methodology of the studies, such as the blinding of participants and personnel.

conclusionsThe results outline the need for further research with more homogeneous acceptability studies to draw a final conclusion. However, the underlying results show that there is a tendency toward general acceptability of web-based interventions in the workplace, with findings of general applicability to the use of web-based mental health interventions.

Indexed as

acceptabilitye-mental healthemployeesmobile phoneoccupational online interventionsonline mental health interventions

Identifiers

PMID35544305
PMCPMC9133994
OpenAlexW4226330764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.