Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42464279›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2026

Workplace mental wellbeing interventions in the construction industry: a systematic review of outcome reporting as a first step for the development of a core outcomes set.

Chloe Mitchell, David Nickson, Amber F Tout, Richard Cooke, Rachel Povey, Kevin Daniels, Kirstie Haywood, Carla T Toro

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Chloe MitchellWarwick Medical School, Warwick Applied Health, Mental Health Innovations Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7HL, UK.
David NicksonWarwick Medical School, Warwick Applied Health, Mental Health Innovations Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7HL, UK. david.nickson.1@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1995-224X
Amber F ToutWarwick Medical School, Warwick Applied Health, Mental Health Innovations Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7HL, UK.
Richard CookePsychology Department, School of Health, Education, Policing and Sciences, Science Centre, University of Staffordshire, Stoke On Trent, ST4 2DF, UK.
Rachel PoveyPsychology Department, School of Health, Education, Policing and Sciences, Science Centre, University of Staffordshire, Stoke On Trent, ST4 2DF, UK.
Kevin DanielsNorwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Kirstie HaywoodWarwick Medical School, Warwick Applied Health, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7HL, UK.
Carla T ToroWarwick Medical School, Warwick Applied Health, Mental Health Innovations Group, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7HL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConstruction workers experience high job demands and challenging work conditions; therefore, evidence-based interventions to support the wellbeing of workers are needed. This systematic review describes previous studies that have tested interventions to improve the mental wellbeing of construction workers. Outcome measures used within the studies were summarised as a first step in developing a Core Outcome Set (COS) for workplace mental wellbeing interventions in the construction industry.

methodsThe NICE NG212 Mental Wellbeing at Work guideline definition and categorisation of mental wellbeing interventions was used to guide search terms to identify intervention studies to improve construction worker mental wellbeing in four online databases: PsycINFO, Web of Science, MEDLINE and Scopus. Intervention study type and participant characteristics were summarised, followed by patterns of outcome reporting with outcomes inductively mapped to outcome domains.

resultsSixteen studies from eight countries were included. A large proportion (7 of 16) evaluated components of the Australian MATES suicide prevention programme or an Australian electronic mental health stigma intervention. Other interventions were organisational or targeted supervisors, peers and/or individual workers. A total of 43 mental wellbeing relevant outcomes were reported and these were inductively categorised into four domains: (1) mental health and wellbeing, (2) work processes and environment, (3) mental health stigma, behaviours, or attitudes, and (4) suicide awareness, knowledge, beliefs, or behaviours. The greatest number of outcomes fell into domain 2 (16/45; 37%). The seven Australian studies reported all outcomes for two of the outcome domains (domains (3) and (4)). No economic outcomes were reported in any of the studies.

conclusionsA variety of organisational or supervisor, peer and/or individual targeted interventions to improve mental wellbeing of construction workers have been evaluated. Outcome reporting related to mental wellbeing fell into four broad outcome domains, with substantial heterogeneity within these categories. This provides an important first step for the development of a COS to enable researchers and organisations to use a consistent approach to data collection and evaluate interventions to improve mental wellbeing for the construction workforce.

trial registrationResearch England Business and Commercialisation Fund. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42023410717.

Indexed as

Construction IndustryMental HealthOccupational HealthOutcome Assessment, Health CareWorkplaceHumansPsychological Well-BeingWorking ConditionsConstruction industryMental wellbeingOutcome reportingPsychosocial stressorSystematic reviewWorkforceWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID42464279
PMCPMC13656663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.