Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42766591›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

Mental health monitoring in the workplace using artificial intelligence: A scoping review.

Kalee Jack, Julie Tian, Viktoriia Kurkova, Setayesh Modanloo, Liz Dennett, Jasmine Noble, Andrew Greenshaw, Jake Hayward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital 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.

Kalee JackDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5113-9671
Julie TianDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0535-8426
Viktoriia KurkovaDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Setayesh ModanlooDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Liz DennettGeoffrey and Robyn Sperber Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jasmine NobleDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Andrew GreenshawDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jake HaywardDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Workplace mental health issues are a prevalent concern. A potential solution is remote health monitoring. In this scoping review, we map evidence on artificial intelligence (AI) for workplace mental health monitoring. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were searched until March 2024. Studies that evaluated AI for monitoring of a common workplace mental health concern in an actual workplace setting were included. Thirteen studies were included; most (8/13, 62%) were conducted in an office environment, and 4/13 (31%) were in healthcare. Most studies monitored stress (10/13, 77%). The most common method was wearable sensors (8/13, 62%). Studies monitored a wide variety of parameters; the most common were physical activity (7/13, 54%), heart rate or heart rate variability (7/13, 54%). A wide variety of participant-report surveys, including validated (7/13, 54%) and non-validated (6/13, 46%) surveys, were used to measure mental health outcomes. Studies employed diverse AI methods, including supervised, semi-supervised and other (Markov chain and Monte Carlo). The most common AI models used were support vector machines (5/13, 38%), decision trees (5/13, 38%), naive Bayes (4/13, 31%), and random forest (4/13, 38%). Model accuracy ranged from 62%-99%. Future work should identify standard metrics to enable cross-comparability and use larger, high-quality datasets for enriched training, advanced optimization techniques, and careful model tuning.

Identifiers

PMID42766591
PMCPMC13592608

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.