8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The effectiveness of organisational-level workplace mental health interventions on mental health and wellbeing in construction workers: A systematic review and recommended research agenda

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          This systematic review assesses the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of organisational-level workplace mental health interventions on stress, burnout, non-clinical depressive and anxiety symptoms, and wellbeing in construction workers.

          Methods

          Eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), controlled or uncontrolled before- and after studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2010 and May 2022 in five databases (Academic Search Complete, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science). Outcomes were stress, burnout and non-clinical depression and anxiety symptoms, and wellbeing (primary) and workplace changes and sickness absenteeism (secondary). Quality appraisal was conducted using the QATQS scale, a narrative synthesis was applied. The protocol was published in PROSPERO CRD42020183640 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020183640.

          Main results

          We identified five articles (four studies) with a total sample size of 260, one cRCT, one controlled before- and after study, and two uncontrolled before- and after studies. The methodological quality of one study was rated as moderate, while for three studies it was weak. One study showed significant effects of a work redesign programme in short-term physiological stress parameters, one study showed a significant employee perceived improvement of information flow after supervisor training and one study showed a substantial non-significant decline in sick leave. There was no significant effect on general mental health (SF12) nor on emotional exhaustion. The focus of all studies was on physical health, while detailed mental health and wellbeing measures were not applied.

          Main conclusions

          The evidence for the effectiveness of organisational-level workplace mental health interventions in construction workers is limited with opportunities for methodological and conceptual improvement. Recommendations include the use of a wider range of mental health and wellbeing outcomes, interventions tailored to the specific workplace and culture in construction and the application of the principles of complex interventions in design and evaluation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references94

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

          Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

            The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance

              Evaluating complex interventions is complicated. The Medical Research Council's evaluation framework (2000) brought welcome clarity to the task. Now the council has updated its guidance
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Funding acquisitionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                16 November 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 11
                : e0277114
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
                [2 ] National Suicide Research Foundation, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
                [3 ] Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland
                [4 ] National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [5 ] Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
                [6 ] European Alliance Against Depression e.V., Frankfurt, Germany
                [7 ] Centre Fòrum Research Unit, Institut de Neuropsiquiatria i Addiccions (INAD), Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain
                [8 ] Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM), Barcelona, Instituto Carlos III, CIBERSAM, Madrid, Spain
                [9 ] Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Klinikum der Universität, München, Munich, Germany
                [10 ] Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
                [11 ] London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England
                [12 ] Faculty of Sport, Allied Health and Performance Science, St Marys University, London, England
                [13 ] LUCAS, Centre for Care Research and Consultancy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [14 ] The Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland
                [15 ] Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, Griffith University, Griffith, Queensland, Australia
                [16 ] Phrenos Center of Expertise for Severe Mental Illnesses, Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [17 ] Australian Institute for Research, Griffith University, Mount Gravatt, Australia
                [18 ] International Association for Suicide Prevention, Washington, DC, United States of America
                Manchester Metropolitan University, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2749-6662
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4407-1519
                Article
                PONE-D-22-20510
                10.1371/journal.pone.0277114
                9668198
                36383613
                5af2443b-ef23-4314-a147-61511ede8026
                © 2022 Greiner et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 20 July 2022
                : 19 October 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 6, Pages: 23
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010676, H2020 Societal Challenges;
                Award ID: 848137
                Award Recipient :
                Funding This study is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 848137. The material presented and views expressed here are the responsibility of the author(s) only. The EU Commission takes no responsibility for any use made of the information set out. The funder did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Psychological Stress
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Stress
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Stress
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Supervisors
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Labor Economics
                Employment
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Psychological and Psychosocial Issues
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Social Systems
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Labor Economics
                Employment
                Jobs
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article