ArticleIndustrial psychiatry journal
Exploring the determinants of workplace mental health in a medical institution in central India: A cross-sectional survey.
Article in Industrial psychiatry journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mental health at the workplace (WMH) is an important indicator for the optimum functioning of a medical institute. To establish an effective WMH, it is essential to understand the level of awareness, perceptions, and felt needs of students and staff of a medical institute regarding mental health services within the campus. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted in an institution of national importance in Central India using a semistructured questionnaire based on Kobo Toolbox. Felt need for periodic mental health screening within the institutional campus (FN-S) and felt need of having a separate cell for mental healthcare of students and employees (FN-C) were analyzed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 526 out of 2190 eligible students and staff completed the survey (response rate 24.1%). About half of the participants were not aware, of whom to contact on campus in case of mental health concerns (MHCs), more than three-fourths were not aware of the rights for seeking treatment, and three-fourths thought that getting diagnosed with an MHC would negatively impact their academic course or work. There was a high felt need for mental health screening services (91.1%), and almost two-thirds felt the need for a separate mental health cell. The FN-S was higher among those from rural areas, those not using social media, those without a preexisting MHC, and those without FN-C. FN-C was higher in those not using social media, those having sleep disturbances, those with unawareness of the rights of a mentally ill person, those without any MHC, and those not having FN-S. Conclusion: Active efforts are needed to roll out a mental health screening policy and separate mental health cells within the medical institute. Future research should focus on a qualitative inquiry into the details of the above findings.
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.