How effective are organizational-level interventions in improving the psychosocial work environment, health, and retention of workers? A systematic overview of systematic reviews.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Birgit Aust, Jeppe Lykke Møller, Mads Nordentoft, Karen Bo Frydendall, Elizabeth Bengtsen, Andreas Brøgger Jensen, Anne Helene Garde, Michiel Kompier, Norbert Semmer, Reiner Rugulies, Sofie Østergaard Jaspers
{"title":"How effective are organizational-level interventions in improving the psychosocial work environment, health, and retention of workers? A systematic overview of systematic reviews.","authors":"Birgit Aust, Jeppe Lykke Møller, Mads Nordentoft, Karen Bo Frydendall, Elizabeth Bengtsen, Andreas Brøgger Jensen, Anne Helene Garde, Michiel Kompier, Norbert Semmer, Reiner Rugulies, Sofie Østergaard Jaspers","doi":"10.5271/sjweh.4097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to systematically review the effectiveness of organizational-level interventions in improving the psychosocial work environment and workers' health and retention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an overview of systematic reviews on organizational-level interventions published between 2000 and 2020. We systematically searched academic databases, screened reference lists, and contacted experts, yielding 27 736 records. Of the 76 eligible reviews, 24 of weak quality were excluded, yielding 52 reviews of moderate (N=32) or strong (N=20) quality, covering 957 primary studies. We assessed quality of evidence based on quality of review, consistency of results, and proportion of controlled studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 52 reviews, 30 studied a specific intervention approach and 22 specific outcomes. Regarding intervention approaches, we found strong quality of evidence for interventions focusing on \"changes in working time arrangements\" and moderate quality of evidence for \"influence on work tasks or work organization\", \"health care approach changes\", and \"improvements of the psychosocial work environment\". Regarding outcomes, we found strong quality of evidence for interventions about \"burnout\" and moderate quality evidence for \"various health and wellbeing outcomes\". For all other types of interventions, quality of evidence was either low or inconclusive, including interventions on retention.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This overview of reviews identified strong or moderate quality of evidence for the effectiveness of organizational-level interventions for four specific intervention approaches and two health outcomes. This suggests that the work environment and the health of employees can be improved by certain organizational-level interventions. We need more research, especially about implementation and context, to improve the evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":21528,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","volume":"49 5","pages":"315-329"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10713994/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4097","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the effectiveness of organizational-level interventions in improving the psychosocial work environment and workers' health and retention.

Methods: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews on organizational-level interventions published between 2000 and 2020. We systematically searched academic databases, screened reference lists, and contacted experts, yielding 27 736 records. Of the 76 eligible reviews, 24 of weak quality were excluded, yielding 52 reviews of moderate (N=32) or strong (N=20) quality, covering 957 primary studies. We assessed quality of evidence based on quality of review, consistency of results, and proportion of controlled studies.

Results: Of the 52 reviews, 30 studied a specific intervention approach and 22 specific outcomes. Regarding intervention approaches, we found strong quality of evidence for interventions focusing on "changes in working time arrangements" and moderate quality of evidence for "influence on work tasks or work organization", "health care approach changes", and "improvements of the psychosocial work environment". Regarding outcomes, we found strong quality of evidence for interventions about "burnout" and moderate quality evidence for "various health and wellbeing outcomes". For all other types of interventions, quality of evidence was either low or inconclusive, including interventions on retention.

Conclusions: This overview of reviews identified strong or moderate quality of evidence for the effectiveness of organizational-level interventions for four specific intervention approaches and two health outcomes. This suggests that the work environment and the health of employees can be improved by certain organizational-level interventions. We need more research, especially about implementation and context, to improve the evidence.

组织层面的干预措施在改善工人的社会心理工作环境、健康和留任方面的效果如何?系统综述。
研究目的本研究旨在系统回顾组织层面的干预措施在改善社会心理工作环境、工人健康和留任方面的有效性:我们对 2000 年至 2020 年间发表的有关组织层面干预措施的系统性综述进行了概述。我们系统地检索了学术数据库,筛选了参考文献列表,并联系了专家,共获得 27 736 条记录。在符合条件的 76 篇综述中,我们排除了 24 篇质量较差的综述,得出了 52 篇质量中等(32 篇)或较强(20 篇)的综述,涉及 957 项主要研究。我们根据综述的质量、结果的一致性以及对照研究的比例来评估证据的质量:在 52 篇综述中,30 篇研究了特定的干预方法,22 篇研究了特定的结果。关于干预方法,我们发现以 "改变工作时间安排 "为重点的干预措施的证据质量较高,而 "影响工作任务或工作组织"、"改变医疗保健方法 "和 "改善社会心理工作环境 "的证据质量中等。在结果方面,我们发现 "职业倦怠 "干预措施的证据质量较高,"各种健康和福利结果 "的证据质量中等。对于所有其他类型的干预措施,证据的质量要么很低,要么没有定论,包括对留任的干预措施:本综述为组织层面的干预措施对四种特定干预方法和两种健康结果的有效性提供了较强或中等质量的证据。这表明,某些组织层面的干预措施可以改善员工的工作环境和健康状况。我们需要更多的研究,特别是关于实施和背景的研究,以完善证据。
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