{"title":"职场心理健康干预研究中的忠诚:叙述性回顾","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":"{\"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}","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}
Fidelity in workplace mental health intervention research: A narrative review
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.
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.