ArticlePLOS mental health2026
An economic model to assess the costs and benefits of workplace mental wellbeing interventions: A flexible tool for employers and decision makers.
Article in PLOS mental health, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Poor mental wellbeing is one of the leading causes of long-term sickness absence from work and may lead to absenteeism, presenteeism and staff turnover, costing UK employers an estimated £51 billion annually. This study uses economic modelling to provide data on costs and benefits to employers who are considering implementing a workplace intervention to improve wellbeing. Additionally, the analysis is used to assess any changes in employee outcomes (e.g., productivity and staff turnover). A cost-consequence model with a one-year time horizon was developed to assess the impact of workplace mental wellbeing interventions. Because all workplaces are different, it is not useful to present one single base case to generalise across all settings. Instead, the model generates a series of hypothetical case studies, with varying levels of absenteeism, presenteeism and staff turnover, as well as different levels of productivity and staff replacement costs. Several mental wellbeing interventions are compared with 'no intervention' (current practice) to calculate the total incremental costs and incremental cost per employee. In a hypothetical case study with 50 employees and an intervention cost of £100, the intervention has a net cost saving of £4,207 per employee. Savings are due to reductions in absenteeism and presenteeism. Sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis assess the impact of varying each input, to reflect that inputs will vary substantially for each individual organisation and setting. The intervention is more likely to be cost saving when the baseline levels of absenteeism, presenteeism and staff turnover are high, and the intervention cost is low. Mental wellbeing interventions may influence a range of outcomes, but outcomes demonstrating a mental wellbeing benefit to employees may be challenging to translate into monetary value. The model can be used by decision makers and employers to understand the potential economic and wellbeing implications of implementing workplace mental wellbeing interventions.
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.