Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39854722›Full record

SynthesisJMIR mental health2025

Effectiveness of Digital Mental Health Interventions in the Workplace: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.

Gillian Cameron, Maurice Mulvenna, Edel Ennis, Siobhan O'Neill, Raymond Bond, David Cameron, Alex Bunting

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Gillian Cameron *School of Computing, Ulster University, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0002-4921-0482
Maurice Mulvenna *School of Computing, Ulster University, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1554-0785
Edel Ennis *School of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9677-0725
Siobhan O'Neill *School of Psychology, Ulster University, Coleraine, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8786-2118
Raymond Bond *School of Computing, Ulster University, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1078-2232
David Cameron *Inspire, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0008-3933-8072
Alex Bunting *Inspire, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0000-2327-2541

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is potential for digital mental health interventions to provide affordable, efficient, and scalable support to individuals. Digital interventions, including cognitive behavioral therapy, stress management, and mindfulness programs, have shown promise when applied in workplace settings.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to conduct an umbrella review of systematic reviews in order to critically evaluate, synthesize, and summarize evidence of various digital mental health interventions available within a workplace setting.

methodsA systematic search was conducted to identify systematic reviews relating to digital interventions for the workplace, using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis). The review protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted using a predefined extraction table. To assess the methodological quality of a study, the AMSTAR-2 tool was used to critically appraise systematic reviews of health care interventions.

resultsThe literature search resulted in 11,875 records, which was reduced to 14 full-text systematic literature reviews with the use of Covidence to remove duplicates and screen titles and abstracts. The 14 included reviews were published between 2014 and 2023, comprising 9 systematic reviews and 5 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. AMSTAR-2 was used to complete a quality assessment of the reviews, and the results were critically low for 7 literature reviews and low for the other 7 literature reviews. The most common types of digital intervention studied were cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness/meditation, and stress management followed by other self-help interventions. Effectiveness of digital interventions was found for many mental health symptoms and conditions in employee populations, such as stress, anxiety, depression, burnout, and psychological well-being. Factors such as type of technology, guidance, recruitment, tailoring, and demographics were found to impact effectiveness.

conclusionsThis umbrella review aimed to critically evaluate, synthesize, and summarize evidence of various digital mental health interventions available within a workplace setting. Despite the low quality of the reviews, best practice guidelines can be derived from factors that impact the effectiveness of digital interventions in the workplace.

trial registrationOSF Registries osf.io/rc6ds; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RC6DS.

Indexed as

TelemedicineWorkplaceCognitive Behavioral TherapyHumansMental HealthMindfulnessSystematic Reviews as TopicanxietyburnoutCBTCochrane Librarydatabasesdepressiondigital interventions for mental healthdigital mental healthevaluationMedlinePRISMApsychologicalPubmedstressumbrella reviewWeb of Scienceworkplace wellbeing

Identifiers

PMID39854722
PMCPMC11806266

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.