Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/32215
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Evidence for implementation of interventions to promote mental health in the workplace: a systematic scoping review protocol
Author(s): Paterson, Charlotte
Leduc, Caleb
Maxwell, Margaret
Aust, Birgit
Amann, Benedikt L
Cerga-Pashoja, Arlinda
Coppens, Evelien
Couwenbergh, Chrisje
O’Connor, Cliodhna
Arensman, Ella
Greiner, Birgit A
Contact Email: charlotte.paterson@stir.ac.uk
Keywords: Barriers and facilitators
RE-AIM
Workplace
Mental health promotion
Implementation science
Scoping review
Organisational interventions
Workplace interventions
Process evaluation
Wellbeing promotion
Issue Date: 2021
Date Deposited: 29-Jan-2021
Citation: Paterson C, Leduc C, Maxwell M, Aust B, Amann BL, Cerga-Pashoja A, Coppens E, Couwenbergh C, O’Connor C, Arensman E & Greiner BA (2021) Evidence for implementation of interventions to promote mental health in the workplace: a systematic scoping review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 10 (1), Art. No.: 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01570-9
Abstract: Background Mental health problems are common in the working population and represent a growing concern internationally, with potential impacts on workers, organisations, workplace health and compensation authorities, labour markets and social policies. Workplace interventions that create workplaces supportive of mental health, promote mental health awareness, destigmatise mental illness and support those with mental disorders are likely to improve health and economical outcomes for employees and organisations. Identifying factors associated with successful implementation of these interventions can improve intervention quality and evaluation, and facilitate the uptake and expansion. Therefore, we aim to review research reporting on the implementation of mental health promotion interventions delivered in workplace settings, in order to increase understanding of factors influencing successful delivery. Methods and analysis A scoping review will be conducted incorporating a stepwise methodology to identify relevant literature reviews, primary research and grey literature. This review is registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry897). One reviewer will conduct the search to identify English language studies in the following electronic databases from 2008 through to July 1, 2020: Scopus, PROSPERO, Health Technology Assessments, PubMed, Campbell Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL and Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH). Reference searching, Google Scholar, Grey Matters, IOSH and expert contacts will be used to identify grey literature. Two reviewers will screen title and abstracts, aiming for 95% agreement, and then independently screen full texts for inclusion. Two reviewers will assess methodological quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and extract and synthesize data in line with the RE-AIM framework, Nielson and Randall’s model of organisational-level interventions and Moore’s sustainability criteria, if the data allows. We will recruit and consult with international experts in the field to ensure engagement, reach and relevance of the main findings. Discussion This will be the first systematic scoping review to identify and synthesise evidence of barriers and facilitators to implementing mental health promotion interventions in workplace settings. Our results will inform future evaluation studies and randomised controlled trials and highlight gaps in the evidence base. Systematic review registration Research Registry (reviewregistry897)
DOI Link: 10.1186/s13643-020-01570-9
Rights: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Licence URL(s): http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Paterson_et_al-2021-Systematic_Reviews.pdfFulltext - Published Version581.59 kBAdobe PDFView/Open



This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.