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":null,"pages":null},"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.
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).
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
