Values and Preferences Related to Workplace Mental Health Programs and Interventions: An International Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction This study explores the perspectives of workers and managers on workplace programs and interventions that seek to promote mental wellbeing, and prevent and treat mental health conditions The results contributed supporting evidence for the development of the WHO’s first global guidelines for mental health and work, which provide evidence-based recommendations to support the implementation of workplace mental health programs and supports, to improve their acceptability, appropriateness, and uptake. Methods A survey was used to examine the values and preferences among workers and employers related to workplace mental health prevention, protection, promotion, and support programs and services. The survey was made available in English, French, and Spanish. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the survey data. Rapid thematic analysis was used to analyse the results of qualitative questions. Results These results provide a unique international perspective on programs and supports for mental health at work, from the standpoint of employees, including managers. Results suggest that employees value interventions developed in consultation with workers (including indicated, selective and universal interventions), increased training and capacity building among managers, and targeted interventions to address the pervasive impact of stigma on perceptions about mental health at work and help-seeking. The findings of this study seek to reflect the perspectives of workers, including managers, and therein to promote improved access, availability and uptake of mental health programs and supports at work and – ultimately- to support the potential of workplaces as environments that promote and support mental health.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".