Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38489824›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2024

Group-level workplace interventions to improve mental health in low control, high-demand office-based jobs. A scoping review.

Evangelia Demou, Carolyn Blake, Charisse Tan Llorin, Maria Guadalupe Salanga, Niño Jose Mateo, Ruth Lewis, Kirstin R Mitchell

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Evangelia DemouMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Clarice Pears Building, 90 Byres Road, Glasgow G12 8TB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8616-525X
Carolyn BlakeMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Clarice Pears Building, 90 Byres Road, Glasgow G12 8TB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7231-4290
Charisse Tan LlorinSocial Development Research Center, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 0922, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0003-2959-5207
Maria Guadalupe SalangaDepartment of Psychology, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 0922, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0001-9752-7594
Niño Jose MateoDepartment of Counseling and Educational Psychology, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 0922, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0003-4646-6132
Ruth LewisMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Clarice Pears Building, 90 Byres Road, Glasgow G12 8TB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6768-6188
Kirstin R MitchellMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Clarice Pears Building, 90 Byres Road, Glasgow G12 8TB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4409-6601
MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit · GBDe La Salle University · PH

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Medical Research Council MR/V004093/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWorkplace psychosocial risk factors, including low autonomy and high demands, have negative consequences for employee mental health and wellbeing. There is a need to support employees experiencing mental health and well-being problems in these jobs. This scoping review aims to describe group-level workplace interventions and their approaches to improving the mental health and well-being of employees in office-based, low autonomy, and high demands jobs.

methodsFollowing PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a search was conducted across 4 databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA). We explored studies presenting group-level interventions, mode of implementation, facilitators and barriers, and intervention effectiveness. The search was restricted to include office-based, low autonomy, and high-demands jobs. Primary outcome of interest was mental health and secondary outcomes were work-related and other well-being outcomes.

resultsGroup-level workplace interventions include an array of organizational, relational, and individual components. Almost all included a training session or workshop for intervention delivery. Several had manuals but theories of change were rare. Most workplace interventions did not use participatory approaches to involve employees in intervention development, implementation and evaluation, and challenges and facilitators were not commonly reported. Key facilitators were shorter intervention duration, flexible delivery modes, and formalized processes (e.g. manuals). A key barrier was the changeable nature of workplace environments. All studies employing behavioural interventions reported significant improvements in mental health outcomes, while no clear pattern of effectiveness was observed for other outcomes or types of interventions employed.

conclusionsGroup-based interventions in low-autonomy office settings can be effective but few studies used participatory approaches or conducted process evaluations limiting our knowledge of the determinants for successful group-based workplace interventions. Involving stakeholders in intervention development, implementation, and evaluation is recommended and can be beneficial for better articulation of the acceptability and barriers and facilitators for delivery and engagement.

Indexed as

Mental HealthOccupational HealthWorkplaceHumansgroup-levelinterventionlow autonomymental healthoccupational healthoffice basedworkplace interventionworkplaces

Identifiers

PMID38489824
PMCPMC11033569
OpenAlexW4392865102

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.