SynthesisBMC public health2024
Mental health interventions affecting university faculty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness and Feasibility of Workplace-Based Mental Health Interventions for University Academic Staff: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- Preliminary findings from a brief psychodynamic counseling program for university staff: users' psychological characteristics and implications for the program's utility.Research in psychotherapy (Milano) · 2026Article
- Work-related distress and professional quality of life in a medical-school workforce: a primary-care occupational-health perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Workplace Mental Health Status Among Academic Staff: Psychological Distress, Burnout, and Organisational Culture at a South African University.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile there is growing evidence highlighting the prevalence of mental health concerns among university faculty, few studies have examined mental health interventions in this population. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to collect and critically appraise the available evidence about the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve the mental health of faculty.
methodsA systematic search was conducted by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL to identify relevant studies published in English language from January 1st, 2000 until October 1st, 2023. The search focused on studies done on academic faculty to describe interventions or support programs aimed at improving mental health outcomes, with comparison of mental health data before and after the intervention and an improvement in mental health as study outcome. A random effect meta-analysis method was used to estimate the effectiveness of interventions on faculty mental health.
resultsTen publications with 891 participants from 2,217 retrieved records were included. The random effect model showed substantial heterogeneity (I
conclusionInterventions aimed at enhancing the mental health of university faculty were overall significant; however, individual studies showed heterogeneous results. Making efforts to enhance the mental health of faculty is crucial and has been proven effective; nevertheless, the existing evidence necessitates further research in this area. For interventions to be effective, it is imperative to tailor them to the specific environment and to the unique characteristics of faculty members. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023490388.
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.