Cargando…

Workplace mental health screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Workplaces are an important location for population mental health interventions. Screening to detect employees at risk of or experiencing mental ill health is increasingly common. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of workplace mental health screening programmes on employ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Strudwick, Jessica, Gayed, Aimee, Deady, Mark, Haffar, Sam, Mobbs, Sophia, Malik, Aiysha, Akhtar, Aemal, Braund, Taylor, Bryant, Richard A, Harvey, Samuel B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10423530/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37321849
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2022-108608
_version_ 1785089473098285056
author Strudwick, Jessica
Gayed, Aimee
Deady, Mark
Haffar, Sam
Mobbs, Sophia
Malik, Aiysha
Akhtar, Aemal
Braund, Taylor
Bryant, Richard A
Harvey, Samuel B
author_facet Strudwick, Jessica
Gayed, Aimee
Deady, Mark
Haffar, Sam
Mobbs, Sophia
Malik, Aiysha
Akhtar, Aemal
Braund, Taylor
Bryant, Richard A
Harvey, Samuel B
author_sort Strudwick, Jessica
collection PubMed
description Workplaces are an important location for population mental health interventions. Screening to detect employees at risk of or experiencing mental ill health is increasingly common. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of workplace mental health screening programmes on employee mental health, work outcomes, user satisfaction, positive mental health, quality of life, help-seeking and adverse effects. PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health and SciELO were searched (database inception–10 November 2022) and results screened by two independent reviewers. Controlled trials evaluating screening of workers’ mental health as related to their employment were included. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled effect sizes for each outcome of interest. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was conducted to evaluate the certainty of findings. Of the 12 328 records screened, 11 were included. These reported 8 independent trials collectively assessing 2940 employees. Results indicated screening followed by advice or referral was ineffective in improving employee mental health symptoms (n=3; d=−0.07 (95% CI −0.29 to 0.15)). Screening followed by facilitated access to treatment interventions demonstrated a small improvement in mental health (n=4; d=−0.22 (95% CI −0.42 to –0.02)). Limited effects were observed for other outcomes. Certainty ranged from low to very low. The evidence supporting workplace mental health screening programmes is limited and available data suggest mental health screening alone does not improve worker mental health. Substantial variation in the implementation of screening was observed. Further research disentangling the independent effect of screening alongside the efficacy of other interventions to prevent mental ill health at work is required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10423530
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104235302023-08-14 Workplace mental health screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis Strudwick, Jessica Gayed, Aimee Deady, Mark Haffar, Sam Mobbs, Sophia Malik, Aiysha Akhtar, Aemal Braund, Taylor Bryant, Richard A Harvey, Samuel B Occup Environ Med Systematic Review Workplaces are an important location for population mental health interventions. Screening to detect employees at risk of or experiencing mental ill health is increasingly common. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of workplace mental health screening programmes on employee mental health, work outcomes, user satisfaction, positive mental health, quality of life, help-seeking and adverse effects. PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health and SciELO were searched (database inception–10 November 2022) and results screened by two independent reviewers. Controlled trials evaluating screening of workers’ mental health as related to their employment were included. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled effect sizes for each outcome of interest. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was conducted to evaluate the certainty of findings. Of the 12 328 records screened, 11 were included. These reported 8 independent trials collectively assessing 2940 employees. Results indicated screening followed by advice or referral was ineffective in improving employee mental health symptoms (n=3; d=−0.07 (95% CI −0.29 to 0.15)). Screening followed by facilitated access to treatment interventions demonstrated a small improvement in mental health (n=4; d=−0.22 (95% CI −0.42 to –0.02)). Limited effects were observed for other outcomes. Certainty ranged from low to very low. The evidence supporting workplace mental health screening programmes is limited and available data suggest mental health screening alone does not improve worker mental health. Substantial variation in the implementation of screening was observed. Further research disentangling the independent effect of screening alongside the efficacy of other interventions to prevent mental ill health at work is required. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-08 2023-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10423530/ /pubmed/37321849 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2022-108608 Text en © World Health Organization 2023. Licensee BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution IGO License (CC BY 3.0 IGO (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/) ), which permits use, distribution,and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any reproduction of this article there should not be any suggestion that WHO or this article endorse any specific organization or products. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article’s original URL.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Strudwick, Jessica
Gayed, Aimee
Deady, Mark
Haffar, Sam
Mobbs, Sophia
Malik, Aiysha
Akhtar, Aemal
Braund, Taylor
Bryant, Richard A
Harvey, Samuel B
Workplace mental health screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Workplace mental health screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Workplace mental health screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Workplace mental health screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Workplace mental health screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Workplace mental health screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort workplace mental health screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10423530/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37321849
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2022-108608
work_keys_str_mv AT strudwickjessica workplacementalhealthscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gayedaimee workplacementalhealthscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT deadymark workplacementalhealthscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT haffarsam workplacementalhealthscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mobbssophia workplacementalhealthscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT malikaiysha workplacementalhealthscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT akhtaraemal workplacementalhealthscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT braundtaylor workplacementalhealthscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bryantricharda workplacementalhealthscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT harveysamuelb workplacementalhealthscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis