ArticleEnvironmental and occupational health practice2025
Interventions aimed at improving Japanese healthcare professionals' mental health literacy in the workplace: a scoping review protocol.
Article in Environmental and occupational health practice, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Mental health literacy (MHL) is a crucial determinant of mental wellbeing and encompasses knowledge, understanding, and attitudes related to mental health and mental disorders. Presently, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses, or even literature reviews exist regarding MHL interventions targeting healthcare professionals in Japan. Therefore, this protocol for scoping review aims to provide strategies to report interventions intended at improving MHL among Japanese healthcare professionals in the workplace. Methods: The review will adhere to the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and enhanced by the Joanna Briggs Institute, which consists of five stages: identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; selecting eligible studies; charting the data; and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. This review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Extension for Scoping Reviews. The participants, concept, and context framework will be employed to identify the key elements of the research question, with the participants being Japanese healthcare professionals (doctors or nurses), the concept being the content and effectiveness of MHL intervention programs, and the context being the workplace setting in Japan. The search strategy will involve searching electronic databases, hand-searching the reference lists of the included studies, and consulting experts in the field.
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.