Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42566718›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2026

Effectiveness of a Brief Internet-Based Workplace Training Program to Support Help Seeking for Mental Ill-Health: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Philip J Batterham, Amelia Gulliver, Cassandra Heffernan, Alison L Calear, Aliza Werner-Seidler, Alyna Turner, Louise M Farrer, Mary Lou Chatterton, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Monica Gendi and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 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

11 authors.

Philip J Batterham *Centre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2600, Australia, 61 26125 ext 1031.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4547-6876
Amelia Gulliver *Centre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2600, Australia, 61 26125 ext 1031.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6351-9844
Cassandra HeffernanCentre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2600, Australia, 61 26125 ext 1031.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9722-7970
Alison L CalearCentre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2600, Australia, 61 26125 ext 1031.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7028-725X
Aliza Werner-SeidlerBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9046-6159
Alyna TurnerDeakin Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7389-2546
Louise M FarrerCentre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2600, Australia, 61 26125 ext 1031.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5694-4631
Mary Lou ChattertonSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4902-9448
Cathrine MihalopoulosSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-9462
Monica GendiCentre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, 2600, Australia, 61 26125 ext 1031.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9662-7059
Michael BerkDeakin Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation (IMPACT), School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2520-9903

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Depression and anxiety are prevalent in working-aged adults. Although treatment provided by health professionals can improve symptoms and functioning, many people experiencing mental ill-health do not seek help. There have been very few effective interventions to improve help seeking in adults, with none implemented across diverse workplaces through online delivery. Objective: The primary aim of this trial was to test the effectiveness of a co-designed program for increasing professional help seeking intentions in Australian employees, relative to an active control condition. Methods: A triple-blinded, 2-arm cluster randomized controlled trial (N=487; control workplaces: n=26 and intervention workplaces: n=25) was conducted to assess the relative effectiveness of Helipad, a fully automated co-designed single-session interactive program (intervention condition) with a standard psychoeducation program (active control condition). Eligible workplaces (those with ≥50 employees and an employee assistance program; clusters) were recruited via advertising or invited directly by researchers. Eligible participants (employees in a participating Australian workplace, aged ≥18 y, living in Australia, fluent in reading and understanding English, and had access to a device and a reliable internet connection) completed a pretest, immediate posttest, and 6-month follow-up survey sent via email assessing help seeking intentions (primary outcome); mental illness stigma; mental health literacy; help seeking attitudes and behavior; work and activity functioning; quality of life; and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and general psychological distress. Results: A significant difference in change over time in professional help seeking intentions was found between the 2 conditions (F2,185.44=6.89; P=.001), with planned contrasts showing that the Helipad program was effective in increasing professional help seeking intentions compared with the control at the primary end point of immediate posttest (t359.35=-3.72; P<.001). This difference was not maintained at the 6-month follow-up (t119.76=-1.05; P=.30). Retention rates were 71.1% at posttest and 24.9% at follow-up. The Helipad program was also associated with improved mental health literacy and help seeking attitudes at posttest. Helipad was not significantly superior to the control in reducing mental illness stigma or improving professional help seeking behavior; functioning; quality of life; or symptoms of depression, anxiety, or general psychological distress (secondary outcomes) at the 6-month follow-up. A total of 15 people (control: n=9, 4.5%; intervention: n=6, 4.3%) reported adverse events at posttest. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the co-designed online Helipad program was effective in improving the intentions of employees to seek help from a professional compared to an active control. The program also improved mental health literacy and help seeking attitudes, but these changes were not sustained and did not translate into observable differences in help seeking behaviors or mental health symptoms. This was the first trial of a co-designed intervention to improve mental health help seeking in general workplaces, with previous trials focusing primarily on specific high-risk work environments. Workplace programs that can be delivered at scale may lead to more appropriate engagement with professional mental health care to prevent poor mental health outcomes and increase productivity.

Indexed as

Help-Seeking BehaviorInternetInternet-Based InterventionMental DisordersPatient Acceptance of Health CareWorkplaceAdultAustraliaDepressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedemployeehelp seekingimplementationinternetmental healthpsychiatrypsychologyworkplace

Identifiers

PMID42566718
PMCPMC13450809

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.