ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2024
Towards an assessment of psychosocial work factors in a multi-level mental health intervention in the workplace: results from the MENTUPP pilot-study.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMental health in the workplace is a growing concern for enterprises and policy makers. MENTUPP is a multi-level mental health intervention implemented in small and medium size enterprises from three work sectors in nine countries. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, delivery, and instruments for the MENTUPP intervention to inform the planning of a clustered randomized controlled trial.
methodsWe administered items from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire and the Danish Work Environment Cohort Study measuring psychosocial workplace factors. The questionnaire was answered by 382 participants at baseline, of which 98 participants also answered after six months at follow-up. We calculated mean scores of 19 psychosocial factors at baseline and conducted repeated measures ANOVAs to assess differences in eight psychosocial factors at follow-up. We also examined whether outcomes differed between work sectors and job positions at follow-up.
resultsThe construction sector and workers with no or a lower leadership role reported more negative working environment factors at baseline. We observed a statistically significant decline in social support from colleagues and social community at work, and a marginally significant decline in justice at work. For the rest of the constructs, we did not observe statistically significant changes.
conclusionsWe found significant differences in psychosocial work environment factors among work sectors and job positions at baseline. Contrary to our hypotheses, three psychosocial work environment factors decreased at follow-up. Possible explanations are the utilization of specific psychosocial factors as resources to cope with psychosocial stressors, high participant expectations that were not met by the intervention, insufficient time for structural changes, or the intervention prompting critical evaluations of the work environment. These findings will inform the design and implementation of the forthcoming clustered randomized controlled trial, where they will also be further investigated to validate their significance.
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.