Suchergebnisse

Abstract

Objectives
Workplace psychosocial risk factors, including low autonomy and high demands, have negative consequences for employee mental health and wellbeing. There is a need to support employees experiencing mental health and well-being problems in these jobs. This scoping review aims to describe group-level workplace interventions and their approaches to improving the mental health and well-being of employees in office-based, low autonomy, and high demands jobs.


Methods
Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a search was conducted across 4 databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA). We explored studies presenting group-level interventions, mode of implementation, facilitators and barriers, and intervention effectiveness. The search was restricted to include office-based, low autonomy, and high-demands jobs. Primary outcome of interest was mental health and secondary outcomes were work-related and other well-being outcomes.


Results
Group-level workplace interventions include an array of organizational, relational, and individual components. Almost all included a training session or workshop for intervention delivery. Several had manuals but theories of change were rare. Most workplace interventions did not use participatory approaches to involve employees in intervention development, implementation and evaluation, and challenges and facilitators were not commonly reported. Key facilitators were shorter intervention duration, flexible delivery modes, and formalized processes (e.g. manuals). A key barrier was the changeable nature of workplace environments. All studies employing behavioural interventions reported significant improvements in mental health outcomes, while no clear pattern of effectiveness was observed for other outcomes or types of interventions employed.


Conclusions
Group-based interventions in low-autonomy office settings can be effective but few studies used participatory approaches or conducted process evaluations limiting our knowledge of the determinants for successful group-based workplace interventions. Involving stakeholders in intervention development, implementation, and evaluation is recommended and can be beneficial for better articulation of the acceptability and barriers and facilitators for delivery and engagement.

Government controls over intimate relationships, imposed to limit the spread of Sars-CoV-2, were unprecedented in modern times. This study draws on data from qualitative interviews with 18 participants in Natsal-COVID, a quasi-representative web-panel survey of the British population (n = 6,654 people), reporting that they had sex with someone from outside their household in the preceding four weeks; a period in which contact between households was restricted in the UK. Whilst only 10% of people reported sexual contact outside their household, among single people and those in non-cohabiting relationships, rates were much higher (Natsal-COVID). Our findings show that individuals did not take decisions to meet up with sexual partners lightly. Participants were motivated by needs—for connection, security, intimacy and a sense of normality. People balanced risks—of catching COVID-19, social judgement and punishment for rule-breaking—against other perceived risks, including to their mental health or relationships. We used situated rationality and social action theories of risk to demonstrate that people weighed up risk in socially situated ways and exhibited complex decision-making when deciding not to comply with restrictions. Understanding motivations for non-compliance is crucial to informing future public health messaging which accounts for the needs and circumstances of all population members.