Fidelity in workplace mental health intervention research: A narrative review

IF 5.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Work and Stress Pub Date : 2021-06-14 DOI:10.1080/02678373.2021.1936286
D. Fikretoglu, B. Easterbrook, A. Nazarov
{"title":"Fidelity in workplace mental health intervention research: A narrative review","authors":"D. Fikretoglu, B. Easterbrook, A. Nazarov","doi":"10.1080/02678373.2021.1936286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The scientific literature on workplace interventions that target individual-level determinants of mental health for primary or secondary prevention is mixed, with many studies failing to show statistically significant, sizeable effects. A methodological characteristic that may explain these mixed findings is fidelity, a multidimensional construct that captures the extent to which an intervention is implemented as intended, in a standardized manner. In this narrative review, we examined the extent to which workplace mental health intervention studies try to enhance or measure the twelve different dimensions of fidelity that have been identified. We conducted comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Following review, 370 articles were selected for inclusion, of which only 21% explicitly mentioned fidelity. About two-thirds of the articles considered less than half of all relevant fidelity dimensions. Most studies tried to enhance rather than measure fidelity. Only a handful of included studies (n=7, 2%) measured half or more of all relevant fidelity dimensions. Some fidelity dimensions (e.g. theoretical) were considered less often than others (e.g. receipt and enactment). Our review shows that fidelity is insufficiently considered in current workplace mental health literature. We discuss implications for internal and external validity, scalability, and directions for future research.","PeriodicalId":48199,"journal":{"name":"Work and Stress","volume":"36 1","pages":"6 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02678373.2021.1936286","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Work and Stress","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2021.1936286","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT The scientific literature on workplace interventions that target individual-level determinants of mental health for primary or secondary prevention is mixed, with many studies failing to show statistically significant, sizeable effects. A methodological characteristic that may explain these mixed findings is fidelity, a multidimensional construct that captures the extent to which an intervention is implemented as intended, in a standardized manner. In this narrative review, we examined the extent to which workplace mental health intervention studies try to enhance or measure the twelve different dimensions of fidelity that have been identified. We conducted comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Following review, 370 articles were selected for inclusion, of which only 21% explicitly mentioned fidelity. About two-thirds of the articles considered less than half of all relevant fidelity dimensions. Most studies tried to enhance rather than measure fidelity. Only a handful of included studies (n=7, 2%) measured half or more of all relevant fidelity dimensions. Some fidelity dimensions (e.g. theoretical) were considered less often than others (e.g. receipt and enactment). Our review shows that fidelity is insufficiently considered in current workplace mental health literature. We discuss implications for internal and external validity, scalability, and directions for future research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
职场心理健康干预研究中的忠诚:叙述性回顾
摘要针对个人层面的心理健康决定因素进行一级或二级预防的工作场所干预的科学文献喜忧参半,许多研究未能显示出统计上显著、可观的效果。可以解释这些混合发现的一个方法学特征是保真度,这是一个多维结构,以标准化的方式捕捉干预措施按预期实施的程度。在这篇叙述性综述中,我们考察了工作场所心理健康干预研究试图在多大程度上增强或衡量已经确定的十二个不同的保真度维度。我们对MEDLINE、Embase和PsycINFO进行了全面搜索。经过审查,选择了370篇文章进行收录,其中只有21%的文章明确提到了保真度。大约三分之二的文章考虑了不到所有相关保真度维度的一半。大多数研究都试图提高而不是衡量保真度。只有少数纳入的研究(n=7.2%)测量了一半或更多的相关保真度维度。某些保真度维度(如理论)被认为比其他维度(如接收和颁布)更不常见。我们的综述表明,在当前的工作场所心理健康文献中,忠诚度没有得到充分考虑。我们讨论了对内部和外部有效性、可扩展性的影响,以及未来研究的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Work and Stress
Work and Stress PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Work & Stress is an international, multidisciplinary quarterly presenting high-quality papers concerned with the psychological, social and organizational aspects of occupational health and well-being, and stress and safety management. It is published in association with the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The journal publishes empirical reports, scholarly reviews and theoretical papers. It is directed at occupational health psychologists, work and organizational psychologists, those involved with organizational development, and all concerned with the interplay of work, health and organisations. Research published in Work & Stress relates psychologically salient features of the work environment to their psychological, behavioural and health consequences, focusing on the underlying psychological processes. The journal has become a natural home for research on the work-family interface, social relations at work (including topics such as bullying and conflict at work, leadership and organizational support), workplace interventions and reorganizations, and dimensions and outcomes of worker stress and well-being. Such dimensions and outcomes, both positive and negative, include stress, burnout, sickness absence, work motivation, work engagement and work performance. Of course, submissions addressing other topics in occupational health psychology are also welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Professor Karina Nielsen 1973–2024 A watched pot never boils: how appraisals of supervisor remote monitoring influence remote workers’ voice and silence Within-person increases in job autonomy linked to greater employee strain Always on? Development and validation of the Employee Digital Disconnection Scale (EDDS) What does the customer incivility tell me about my worth? A diary study on the short-term effects of customer incivility on self-esteem and job satisfaction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1