Roles and Effectiveness of Prevention, Intervention, and Response Levels within Employee Assistance Programs: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This PRISMA-compliant systematic review synthesized qualitative studies to examine how various Employee Assistance Program (EAP) stakeholders perceive the roles and effectiveness of EAPs using a novel Prevention–Intervention–Response (PIR) framework. Qualitative studies published in English were searched in EBSCO (three databases), PubMed, and Google Scholar. Of the 13 eligible studies, nine were conducted in North America (United States and Canada) and four in non-North American regions. Extracted data were synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach, supported by thematic coding in ATLAS.ti. The main finding was that although organizational leaders (employers) viewed EAPs as valuable and strategic assets, employee experiences were dominated by barriers such as distrust, confidentiality concerns, and cultural stigma. Intervention-level EAPs were frequently examined across both North American and non-North American studies, and the functions within this level remain the core activities of EAPs globally. Prevention-level EAPs were also positively regarded by organizational leaders but were underutilized by employees, largely due to stigmatizing framing; a shift toward presenting them as “skill-building” interventions may increase uptake. Response-level EAPs were the least common but were positively perceived by organizational leaders, especially in North America. This review significantly contributes to the existing literature because it is the first to synthesize qualitative evidence on EAPs with a global scope while distinguishing themes across North American and non-North American contexts. Insights into the perception–reality gap between organizational leaders and employees can help inform strategies to enhance EAP uptake and effectiveness.
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 | 0.090 | 0.266 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".