Workplaces are an important location for population mental health interventions. Screening to detect employees at risk of or experiencing mental ill health is increasingly common. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of workplace mental health screening programmes on employee mental health, work outcomes, user satisfaction, positive mental health, quality of life, help-seeking and adverse effects. PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health and SciELO were searched (database inception-10 November 2022) and results screened by two independent reviewers. Controlled trials evaluating screening of workers' mental health as related to their employment were included. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled effect sizes for each outcome of interest. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was conducted to evaluate the certainty of findings. Of the 12 328 records screened, 11 were included. These reported 8 independent trials collectively assessing 2940 employees. Results indicated screening followed by advice or referral was ineffective in improving employee mental health symptoms (n=3; d=-0.07 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.15)). Screening followed by facilitated access to treatment interventions demonstrated a small improvement in mental health (n=4; d=-0.22 (95% CI -0.42 to -0.02)). Limited effects were observed for other outcomes. Certainty ranged from low to very low. The evidence supporting workplace mental health screening programmes is limited and available data suggest mental health screening alone does not improve worker mental health. Substantial variation in the implementation of screening was observed. Further research disentangling the independent effect of screening alongside the efficacy of other interventions to prevent mental ill health at work is required.
Background: Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.
Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.
Search methods: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022.
Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.
Data collection and analysis: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour); 2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise); 3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above. The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months aGer the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months aGer the intervention ended).
Main results: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised. The number of participants per study arm was >= 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants. Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention. Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention. Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention. Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention. A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention. Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar.
Authors' conclusions: Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.
OBJECTIVE: Occupational stress in professional dementia caregivers in residential aged care facilities has adverse effects on care quality, caregivers' health, and workforce sustainability. The purpose of this study was to examine the evidence regarding interventions to mitigate occupational stress for this population.
METHODS: A systematic review of CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed and MEDLINE databases was conducted to identify original RCT research reporting on stress interventions, published in English between 1995 and March 2022. Search results were screened by two independent reviewers. Quality and risk of bias were appraised using the Downs and Black Checklist and Risk of Bias by two reviewers. Meta-analysis and subgroup analysis examined the pooled intervention effects on stress compared to control.
RESULTS: 10 studies met the inclusion criteria, and these reported on 15 interventions and 28 outcomes from 92 facilities, involving 1,397 caregivers. We found a small and insignificant effect of interventions on caregiver stress (g = -.27, p = .16). Heterogeneity was partially explained by subgroup analysis. Interventions can mitigate stress and burden not attributed to client behaviour (n = 3) (g = -.85, p < .001), and improve caregivers' self-efficacy (n = 4) (g = -.35, p = .07). We were unable to determine the most effective type of intervention, although organisation focused interventions showed the greatest potential (g = -.58, p = .08).
CONCLUSION: Interventions that improve caregivers' personal and organisational resources can reduce non-client associated stress and burden and increase self-efficacy. Aged care providers are recommended to prioritise education with organisational support interventions. Research on longitudinal effects and high-risk caregivers is required. Limitations are discussed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022313715 (registered April 2022).
BACKGROUND: Nurses comprise the largest component of the health workforce worldwide and numerous models of workforce allocation and profile have been implemented. These include changes in skill mix, grade mix or qualification mix, staff-allocation models, staffing levels, nursing shifts, or nurses' work patterns. This is the first update of our review published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review was to explore the effect of hospital nurse-staffing models on patient and staff-related outcomes in the hospital setting, specifically to identify which staffing model(s) are associated with: 1) better outcomes for patients, 2) better staff-related outcomes, and, 3) the impact of staffing model(s) on cost outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers were searched on 22 March 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted-time-series or repeated-measures studies of interventions relating to hospital nurse-staffing models. Participants were patients and nursing staff working in hospital settings. We included any objective reported measure of patient-, staff-related, or economic outcome. The most important outcomes included in this review were: nursing-staff turnover, patient mortality, patient readmissions, patient attendances at the emergency department (ED), length of stay, patients with pressure ulcers, and costs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We worked independently in pairs to extract data from each potentially relevant study and to assess risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies, 17 of which were included in the analysis and eight of which we identified for this update. We identified four types of interventions relating to hospital nurse-staffing models:- introduction of advanced or specialist nurses to the nursing workforce;- introduction of nursing assistive personnel to the hospital workforce;- primary nursing; and- staffing models.The studies were conducted in the USA, the Netherlands, UK, Australia, and Canada and included patients with cancer, asthma, diabetes and chronic illness, on medical, acute care, intensive care and long-stay psychiatric units. The risk of bias across studies was high, with limitations mainly related to blinding of patients and personnel, allocation concealment, sequence generation, and blinding of outcome assessment.The addition of advanced or specialist nurses to hospital nurse staffing may lead to little or no difference in patient mortality (3 studies, 1358 participants). It is uncertain whether this intervention reduces patient readmissions (7 studies, 2995 participants), patient attendances at the ED (6 studies, 2274 participants), length of stay (3 studies, 907 participants), number of patients with pressure ulcers (1 study, 753 participants), or costs (3 studies, 617 participants), as we assessed the evidence for these outcomes as being of very low certainty. It is uncertain whether adding nursing assistive personnel to the hospital workforce reduces costs (1 study, 6769 participants), as we assessed the evidence for this outcome to be of very low certainty. It is uncertain whether primary nursing (3 studies, > 464 participants) or staffing models (1 study, 647 participants) reduces nursing-staff turnover, or if primary nursing (2 studies, > 138 participants) reduces costs, as we assessed the evidence for these outcomes to be of very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review should be treated with caution due to the limited amount and quality of the published research that was included. We have most confidence in our finding that the introduction of advanced or specialist nurses may lead to little or no difference in one patient outcome (i.e. mortality) with greater uncertainty about other patient outcomes (i.e. readmissions, ED attendance, length of stay and pressure ulcer rates). The evidence is of insufficient certainty to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of other types of interventions, including new nurse-staffing models and introduction of nursing assistive personnel, on patient, staff and cost outcomes. Although it has been seven years since the original review was published, the certainty of the evidence about hospital nurse staffing still remains very low.
This review evaluates the evidence on what interventions are effective in reducing public stigma towards people with severe mental illness, defined as schizophrenia, psychosis or bipolar disorder. We included 62 randomised controlled trials of contact interventions, educational interventions, mixed contact and education, family psychoeducation programs, and hallucination simulations. Contact interventions led to small-to-medium reductions in stigmatising attitudes (d = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.55) and desire for social distance (d = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.80) post-intervention, but these were reduced after adjusting for publication bias (d = 0.24 and d = 0.40, respectively). Effects did not vary by type or length of contact. Effects at follow-up were smaller and not significant. Education interventions led to small-to-medium reductions in stigmatising attitudes (d = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.47) and desire for social distance (d = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.46) post-intervention. Small improvements in social distance persisted up to 6 months later (d = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.49), but not attitudes (d = 0.03, 95% CI: −0.12 to 0.18). The combination of contact and education showed similar effects to those that presented either intervention alone, and head-to-head comparisons did not show a clear advantage for either kind of intervention. Family psychoeducation programs showed reductions in stigma post-intervention (d = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.70). The effectiveness of hallucination simulations was mixed. In conclusion, contact interventions and educational interventions have small-to-medium immediate effects upon stigma, but further research is required to investigate how to sustain benefits in the longer-term, and to understand the active ingredients of interventions to maximise their effectiveness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: This is the third update of a review that was originally published in the Cochrane Library in 2002, Issue 2. People with cancer, their families and carers have a high prevalence of psychological stress, which may be minimised by effective communication and support from their attending healthcare professionals (HCPs). Research suggests communication skills do not reliably improve with experience, therefore, considerable effort is dedicated to courses that may improve communication skills for HCPs involved in cancer care. A variety of communication skills training (CST) courses are in practice. We conducted this review to determine whether CST works and which types of CST, if any, are the most effective.
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether communication skills training is effective in changing behaviour of HCPs working in cancer care and in improving HCP well-being, patient health status and satisfaction.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, PsycInfo and CINAHL up to May 2018. In addition, we searched the US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trial Registry and handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: The original review was a narrative review that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-and-after studies. In updated versions, we limited our criteria to RCTs evaluating CST compared with no CST or other CST in HCPs working in cancer care. Primary outcomes were changes in HCP communication skills measured in interactions with real or simulated people with cancer or both, using objective scales. We excluded studies whose focus was communication skills in encounters related to informed consent for research.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form. We pooled data using the random-effects method. For continuous data, we used standardised mean differences (SMDs).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs conducted mainly in outpatient settings. Eleven trials compared CST with no CST intervention; three trials compared the effect of a follow-up CST intervention after initial CST training; two trials compared the effect of CST and patient coaching; and one trial compared two types of CST. The types of CST courses evaluated in these trials were diverse. Study participants included oncologists, residents, other doctors, nurses and a mixed team of HCPs. Overall, 1240 HCPs participated (612 doctors including 151 residents, 532 nurses, and 96 mixed HCPs).Ten trials contributed data to the meta-analyses. HCPs in the intervention groups were more likely to use open questions in the post-intervention interviews than the control group (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48; P = 0.03, I² = 62%; 5 studies, 796 participant interviews; very low-certainty evidence); more likely to show empathy towards their patients (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.32; P = 0.008, I² = 0%; 6 studies, 844 participant interviews; moderate-certainty evidence), and less likely to give facts only (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01; P = 0.05, I² = 68%; 5 studies, 780 participant interviews; low-certainty evidence). Evidence suggesting no difference between CST and no CST on eliciting patient concerns and providing appropriate information was of a moderate-certainty. There was no evidence of differences in the other HCP communication skills, including clarifying and/or summarising information, and negotiation. Doctors and nurses did not perform differently for any HCP outcomes.There were no differences between the groups with regard to HCP 'burnout' (low-certainty evidence) nor with regard to patient satisfaction or patient perception of the HCPs communication skills (very low-certainty evidence). Out of the 17 included RCTs 15 were considered to be at a low risk of overall bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Various CST courses appear to be effective in improving HCP communication skills related to supportive skills and to help HCPs to be less likely to give facts only without individualising their responses to the patient's emotions or offering support. We were unable to determine whether the effects of CST are sustained over time, whether consolidation sessions are necessary, and which types of CST programs are most likely to work. We found no evidence to support a beneficial effect of CST on HCP 'burnout', the mental or physical health and satisfaction of people with cancer.
BACKGROUND: A growing body of literature has identified a range of beneficial physiological and psychological outcomes from the regular practice of mindfulness meditation. For healthcare professionals, mindfulness meditation is claimed to reduce stress, anxiety and burnout, and enhance resilience.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this integrative review was to critically appraise the literature that related to the effectiveness of mindfulness meditation programs for nurses and nursing students.
DESIGN: This review was conducted using Whittemore and Knafl's framework for integrated reviews.
DATA SOURCES: Using the terms mindfulness, mindfulness-based-stress reduction, Vipassana, nurses, and nurse education a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases was conducted: CINAHAL, Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE. EMCARE, ERIC and SCOPUS.
REVIEW METHODS: The initial search located 1703 articles. After screening and checking for eligibility 20 articles were critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative papers and McMaster's Critical appraisal form for quantitative papers. The final number of papers included in the review was 16.
RESULTS: The results of this review identified that mindfulness meditation has a positive impact on nurses' and nursing students' stress, anxiety, depression, burnout, sense of well-being and empathy. However, the majority of the papers described small scale localised studies which limits generalisability.
CONCLUSION: Contemporary healthcare is challenging and complex. This review indicated that mindfulness meditation is an effective strategy for preventing and managing the workplace stress and burnout, which so often plague nursing staff and students. Further studies with larger sample sizes using rigorous research methods would be useful in extending this work.
CONTEXT: As most end-of-life care is provided by health care providers who are generalists rather than specialists in palliative care, effective communication skills training for generalists is essential. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of communication training interventions for generalist palliative care providers on patient-reported outcomes and trainee behaviors. METHODS: Systematic review from searches of 10 databases to December 2015 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ICTRP, CORDIS, and OpenGrey) plus hand searching. Randomized controlled trials of training interventions intended to enhance generalists' communication skills in end-of-life care were included. Two authors independently assessed eligibility after screening, extracted data, and graded quality. Data were pooled for meta-analysis using a random-effects model. PRISMA guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Nineteen of 11,441 articles were eligible, representing 14 trials. Eleven were included in meta-analyses (patients <i>n</i> = 3144, trainees <i>n</i> = 791). Meta-analysis showed no effect on patient outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.10, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.24) and high levels of heterogeneity (chi-square = 21.32, degrees of freedom [df] = 7, <i>P</i> = 0.003; <i>I</i>² = 67%). The effect on trainee behaviors in simulated interactions (SMD = 0.50, 95% CI 0.19–0.81) was greater than in real patient interactions (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.43) with moderate heterogeneity (chi-square = 8.90, df = 5, <i>P</i> = 0.11; <i>I</i>² = 44%; chi-square = 5.96, df = 3, <i>P</i> = 0.11; <i>I</i>² = 50%, respectively). Two interventions with medium effects on showing empathy in real patient interactions included personalized feedback on recorded interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of communication skills training for generalists on patient-reported outcomes remains unclear. Training can improve clinicians' ability to show empathy and discuss emotions, at least in simulated consultations. Personalized feedback on recorded patient interactions may be beneficial. Registration number: CRD42014014777. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
CONTEXT: End of life care (EoLC) communication skills training for generalist palliative care providers is recommended in policy guidance globally. Whilst many training programmes now exist, there has been no comprehensive evidence synthesis to inform future training delivery and evaluation.
OBJECTIVES: To identify and appraise how EoLC communication skills training interventions for generalist palliative care providers are developed, delivered, evaluated, and reported.
METHODS: Systematic review. Ten electronic databases (inception to December 2015) and five relevant journals (January 2004 to December 2015) were searched. Studies testing the effectiveness of EoLC communication skills training for generalists were included. Two independent authors assessed study quality. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis are used to summarise the findings.
RESULTS: From 11,441 unique records, 170 reports were identified (157 published, 13 unpublished), representing 160 evaluation studies of 153 training interventions. Of published papers, eight were low quality, 108 medium, and 41 high. Few interventions were developed with service user involvement (n=7), and most were taught using a mixture of didactics (n=123), reflection and discussion (n=105), and roleplay (n=86). Evaluation designs were weak: <30% were controlled, <15% randomised participants. Over half (n=85) relied on staff self-reported outcomes to assess effectiveness, and 49% did not cite psychometrically validated measures. Key information (e.g. training duration, participant flow) was poorly reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite a proliferation of EoLC communication skills training interventions in the literature, evidence is limited by poor reporting and weak methodology. Based on our findings we present a CONSORT statement supplement to improve future reporting and encourage more rigorous testing.
REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014014777.
Workplaces are an important location for population mental health interventions. Screening to detect employees at risk of or experiencing mental ill health is increasingly common. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy of workplace mental health screening programmes on employee mental health, work outcomes, user satisfaction, positive mental health, quality of life, help-seeking and adverse effects. PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Global Index Medicus, Global Health and SciELO were searched (database inception-10 November 2022) and results screened by two independent reviewers. Controlled trials evaluating screening of workers' mental health as related to their employment were included. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled effect sizes for each outcome of interest. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was conducted to evaluate the certainty of findings. Of the 12 328 records screened, 11 were included. These reported 8 independent trials collectively assessing 2940 employees. Results indicated screening followed by advice or referral was ineffective in improving employee mental health symptoms (n=3; d=-0.07 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.15)). Screening followed by facilitated access to treatment interventions demonstrated a small improvement in mental health (n=4; d=-0.22 (95% CI -0.42 to -0.02)). Limited effects were observed for other outcomes. Certainty ranged from low to very low. The evidence supporting workplace mental health screening programmes is limited and available data suggest mental health screening alone does not improve worker mental health. Substantial variation in the implementation of screening was observed. Further research disentangling the independent effect of screening alongside the efficacy of other interventions to prevent mental ill health at work is required.
