ArticlePloS one2023
Time for You: A process evaluation of the rapid implementation of a multi-level mental health support intervention for frontline workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to Support the Mental Health of Frontline Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Pooled it
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic had wide-ranging negative impacts on mental health. The pandemic also placed extraordinary strain on frontline workers who were required to continue working and putting themselves at risk to provide essential services at a time when their normal support mechanisms may not have been available. This paper presents an evaluation of the Time for You service, a rapidly developed and implemented intervention aimed at providing frontline workers with quick access to flexible online mental health support. Time for You provided service users with three service options: self-guided online cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) resources; guided engagement with online CBT resources; 1-1 psychological therapy with trainee sport and exercise psychologists and trainee health psychologists. A process evaluation informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research considered service fidelity, adaptations, perceived impact, reach, barriers, and facilitators. Interviews with project managers (n = 5), delivery staff (n = 10), and service users (n = 14) explored perceptions of the service implementation and outcomes, supported by data regarding engagement with the online CBT platform (n = 217). Findings indicated that service users valued the flexibility of the service and the speed with which they were able to access support. The support offered by Trainee Psychologists was perceived to be of high quality, and the service was perceived by service users to have improved mental health and wellbeing. The rapid implementation contributed to issues regarding appropriate service user screening that led to trainee psychologists being unable to provide the service users with the support they needed as the presenting issues were outside of trainees' competencies. Overall, the findings suggest that interventions offering flexible, online psychological support to frontline workers can be an effective model for future interventions. Trainee psychologists are also able to play an important role in delivering such services when clear screening processes are in place.
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.