Reducing Mental Health Stigma in the Workplace: A Meta-Analysis of The Working Mind Program in Virtual Delivery Format: Réduire la stigmatisation en milieu de travail : Une méta-analyse du programme L’esprit au travail en format virtuel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundMental health stigma in the workplace has been widely recognized, and workplace programs have been created to improve self-awareness and resiliency, while decreasing stigma. Prior meta-analyses of The Working Mind (TWM) program suggest positive benefits. The current meta-analysis was based on the shift to online delivery of TWM during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was predicted that program outcomes would be approximately the same as in prior analyses of in person delivery of the TWM program.MethodTWM program was delivered by expert trainers to a total of 1,159 participants across six workplace settings. Participants provided informed consent and survey data, prior to, just after and 3 months after the program. Outcomes included stigma, resiliency and readiness for change. Standardized assessments were employed, consistent with prior program analyses.ResultsSignificant reductions in stigma and increases in self-reported resiliency occurred, with immediate overall effect sizes of 0.33 and 0.40, respectively. Some variability among workplace settings was observed. Males had a somewhat better result than females and people who reported worse mental health at program initiation had somewhat better results than others, but these were modest effects. The results were largely stable until the 3-month follow-up assessment period. Attrition across the study interval was considerable.ConclusionsThe virtual delivery of TWM yielded meta-analytic results that were comparable to previous in person outcomes, both in terms of immediate and 3-month assessment intervals. Some variability in outcomes was noted, and some return towards baseline was observed at the 3-month follow-up period. The issue of attrition was also noted, possibility due to effects of online fatigue and the voluntary nature of the study. Suggestions for further study of program effects are given, and workplace wellness programs are encouraged.Plain Language Summary TitleOutcomes of a virtual program to address mental Health Stigma in the workplace.
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".