Beyond Silence: A Randomized, Parallel-Group Trial Exploring the Impact of Workplace Mental Health Literacy Training with Healthcare Employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate whether a contact-based workplace education program was more effective than standard mental health literacy training in promoting early intervention and support for healthcare employees with mental health issues. METHOD: A parallel-group, randomised trial was conducted with employees in 2 multi-site Ontario hospitals with the evaluators blinded to the groups. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 group-based education programs: Beyond Silence (comprising 6 in-person, 2-h sessions plus 5 online sessions co-led by employees who personally experienced mental health issues) or Mental Health First Aid (a standardised 2-day training program led by a trained facilitator). Participants completed baseline, post-group, and 3-mo follow-up surveys to explore perceived changes in mental health knowledge, stigmatized beliefs, and help-seeking/help-outreach behaviours. An intent-to-treat analysis was completed with 192 participants. Differences were assessed using multi-level mixed models accounting for site, group, and repeated measurement. RESULTS: Neither program led to significant increases in help-seeking or help-outreach behaviours. Both programs increased mental health literacy, improved attitudes towards seeking treatment, and decreased stigmatized beliefs, with sustained changes in stigmatized beliefs more prominent in the Beyond Silence group. CONCLUSION: Beyond Silence, a new contact-based education program customised for healthcare workers was not superior to standard mental health literacy training in improving mental health help-seeking or help-outreach behaviours in the workplace. The only difference was a reduction in stigmatized beliefs over time. Additional research is needed to explore the factors that lead to behaviour change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".