A Brief Workplace Training Program to Support Help-Seeking for Mental Ill-Health: Protocol for the Helipad Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most people with mental health problems do not seek help, with delays of even decades in seeking professional help. Lack of engagement with professional mental health services can lead to poor outcomes and functional impairment. However, few effective interventions have been identified to improve help-seeking in adults, and those that exist are not widely implemented to deliver public health impact. Co-designing interventions with people with lived experience of mental ill-health and other relevant stakeholders is critical to increase the likelihood of uptake and engagement with these programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) test the effectiveness of a co-designed help-seeking program on increasing professional help-seeking intentions in employees in a workplace setting; (2) determine whether the program reduces mental illness stigma and improves help-seeking intentions and behavior, mental health literacy, mental health symptoms, and work and activity functioning relative to the control condition; (3) explore factors that facilitate broader implementation of the co-designed program; and (4) explore the cost-effectiveness of the co-designed program compared to the control condition over 6 months. METHODS: A 2-arm cluster randomized controlled trial will be conducted (target sample: N=900 from 30 to 36 workplaces, with n=25 to 35 participants per workplace). The trial will compare the relative effectiveness of an enhanced interactive program (intervention condition) with a standard psychoeducation-alone program (active control condition) on the primary outcome of professional help-seeking intentions as measured by the General Help-Seeking Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include the impact on mental illness stigma; mental health literacy; help-seeking attitudes and behavior; work and activity functioning; quality of life; and symptoms of mental ill-health including depression, anxiety, and general psychological distress. RESULTS: Facilitators of and risks to the trial are identified and addressed in this protocol. Recruitment of workplaces is scheduled to commence in the first quarter of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: If effective, the program has the potential to be ready for rapid dissemination throughout Australia, with the potential to increase appropriate and efficient service use across the spectrum of evidence-based services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12623000270617p; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=385376. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55529.
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 | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.011 |
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".