Fidelity in workplace mental health intervention research: A narrative review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scientific literature on workplace interventions that target individual-level determinants of mental health for primary or secondary prevention is mixed, with many studies failing to show statistically significant, sizeable effects. A methodological characteristic that may explain these mixed findings is fidelity, a multidimensional construct that captures the extent to which an intervention is implemented as intended, in a standardized manner. In this narrative review, we examined the extent to which workplace mental health intervention studies try to enhance or measure the twelve different dimensions of fidelity that have been identified. We conducted comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Following review, 370 articles were selected for inclusion, of which only 21% explicitly mentioned fidelity. About two-thirds of the articles considered less than half of all relevant fidelity dimensions. Most studies tried to enhance rather than measure fidelity. Only a handful of included studies (n=7, 2%) measured half or more of all relevant fidelity dimensions. Some fidelity dimensions (e.g. theoretical) were considered less often than others (e.g. receipt and enactment). Our review shows that fidelity is insufficiently considered in current workplace mental health literature. We discuss implications for internal and external validity, scalability, and directions for future research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it