MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226330764 · doi:10.2196/34655

Acceptability of Web-Based Mental Health Interventions in the Workplace: Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4226330764 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Johanna Scheutzow, Chris Attoe, Joshua Harwood

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMental healthApplied psychologyMedicinePopulationSchema (genetic algorithms)PsychologyEnvironmental healthNursingComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Web-based interventions have proven to be effective not only in clinical populations but also in the occupational setting. Recent studies conducted in the work environment have focused on the effectiveness of these interventions. However, the role of employees' acceptability of web-based interventions and programs has not yet enjoyed a similar level of attention. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to conduct the first comprehensive study on employees' level of acceptability of web-based mental health interventions based on direct and indirect measures, outline the utility of different types of web-based interventions for work-related mental health issues, and build a research base in the field. METHODS: The search was conducted between October 2018 and July 2019 and allowed for any study design. The studies used either qualitative or quantitative data sources. The web-based interventions were generally aimed at supporting employees with their mental health issues. The study characteristics were outlined in a table as well as graded based on their quality using a traffic light schema. The level of acceptability was individually rated using commonly applied methods, including percentile quartiles ranging from low to very high. RESULTS: A total of 1303 studies were identified through multiple database searches and additional resources, from which 28 (2%) were rated as eligible for the synthesis. The results of employees' acceptability levels were mixed, and the studies were very heterogeneous in design, intervention characteristics, and population. Approximately 79% (22/28) of the studies outlined acceptability measures from high to very high, and 54% (15/28) of the studies reported acceptability levels from low to moderate (overlap when studies reported both quantitative and qualitative results). Qualitative studies also provided insights into barriers and preferences, including simple and tailored application tools as well as the preference for nonstigmatized language. However, there were multiple flaws in the methodology of the studies, such as the blinding of participants and personnel. CONCLUSIONS: The results outline the need for further research with more homogeneous acceptability studies to draw a final conclusion. However, the underlying results show that there is a tendency toward general acceptability of web-based interventions in the workplace, with findings of general applicability to the use of web-based mental health interventions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.395 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207