Differential attrition and engagement in randomized controlled trials of occupational mental health interventions in person and online: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Carlota de Miquel, Josep Maria Haro, Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis, Ana Ortiz-Tallo, Tom Chen, Marjo Sinokki, Päivi Naumanen, Beatriz Olaya, Rodrigo A Lima
{"title":"Differential attrition and engagement in randomized controlled trials of occupational mental health interventions in person and online: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Carlota de Miquel, Josep Maria Haro, Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis, Ana Ortiz-Tallo, Tom Chen, Marjo Sinokki, Päivi Naumanen, Beatriz Olaya, Rodrigo A Lima","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.4173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the differential attrition and utilization of occupational mental health interventions, specifically examining delivery methods (internet-based versus in-person).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The research, with papers spanning 2010-2024, involved filtering criteria and comprehensive searches across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core (PROSPERO registration n. CRD42022322394). Of 28 683 titles, 84 records were included in the systematic review, with 75 in meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed through the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized control trials and funnel plots. Differential attrition across studies was meta-analysed through a random-effects model with limited maximum-likelihood estimation for the degree of heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings reveal higher mean differential attrition in the intervention group, indicating a potential challenge in maintaining participant engagement. The attrition rates were not significantly influenced by the mode of intervention delivery (internet versus in-person). Compensation for participation and year of publication could potentially influence differential attrition from baseline to follow-up measurements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results suggest a need for cautious consideration of attrition in occupational mental health intervention study designs and emphasize the importance of adapting statistical analyses to mitigate potential bias arising from differential attrition.</p>","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":" ","pages":"588-601"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11616721/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4173","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the differential attrition and utilization of occupational mental health interventions, specifically examining delivery methods (internet-based versus in-person).

Methods: The research, with papers spanning 2010-2024, involved filtering criteria and comprehensive searches across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core (PROSPERO registration n. CRD42022322394). Of 28 683 titles, 84 records were included in the systematic review, with 75 in meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed through the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized control trials and funnel plots. Differential attrition across studies was meta-analysed through a random-effects model with limited maximum-likelihood estimation for the degree of heterogeneity.

Results: Findings reveal higher mean differential attrition in the intervention group, indicating a potential challenge in maintaining participant engagement. The attrition rates were not significantly influenced by the mode of intervention delivery (internet versus in-person). Compensation for participation and year of publication could potentially influence differential attrition from baseline to follow-up measurements.

Conclusions: These results suggest a need for cautious consideration of attrition in occupational mental health intervention study designs and emphasize the importance of adapting statistical analyses to mitigate potential bias arising from differential attrition.

在职业心理健康干预的随机对照试验中,面对面和在线的自然减员和参与度存在差异:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的本研究系统回顾并荟萃分析了职业心理健康干预措施的不同损耗和利用情况,特别是研究了提供方法(基于互联网与面对面):这项研究的论文时间跨度为 2010-2024 年,采用了筛选标准,并在 PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science Core(PROSPERO 注册编号:CRD42022322394)上进行了全面检索。在 28 683 篇论文中,84 篇被纳入系统综述,75 篇被纳入荟萃分析。偏倚风险通过修订版 Cochrane 随机对照试验偏倚风险工具和漏斗图进行评估。通过随机效应模型和有限的最大似然估计异质性程度,对不同研究之间的差异损耗进行了荟萃分析:结果:研究结果显示,干预组的平均差异损耗率较高,这表明在维持参与者参与度方面存在潜在挑战。干预方式(互联网与面对面)对流失率的影响不大。参与补偿和发表年份可能会影响从基线到随访测量的不同流失率:这些结果表明,在职业心理健康干预研究设计中需要谨慎考虑自然减员问题,并强调了调整统计分析以减少因自然减员差异而产生的潜在偏差的重要性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health
Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
9.50%
发文量
65
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal is to promote research in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety and to increase knowledge through the publication of original research articles, systematic reviews, and other information of high interest. Areas of interest include occupational and environmental epidemiology, occupational and environmental medicine, psychosocial factors at work, physical work load, physical activity work-related mental and musculoskeletal problems, aging, work ability and return to work, working hours and health, occupational hygiene and toxicology, work safety and injury epidemiology as well as occupational health services. In addition to observational studies, quasi-experimental and intervention studies are welcome as well as methodological papers, occupational cohort profiles, and studies associated with economic evaluation. The Journal also publishes short communications, case reports, commentaries, discussion papers, clinical questions, consensus reports, meeting reports, other reports, book reviews, news, and announcements (jobs, courses, events etc).
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信