Trial reportBMC public health2025
Improving mental health and well-being of hospital staff: mixed-methods process evaluation of the SEEGEN trial.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth workers experience high levels of occupational stress. There is a lack of knowledge about moderators and active ingredients of interventions aiming to reduce occupational stress in health workers. This paper presents results of the mixed-methods process evaluation of the SEEGEN (“SEElische GEsundheit am Arbeitsplatz KrankeNhaus) randomised controlled trial.
methodsEmployees of three hospitals in Germany were recruited for this trial between 10/2019 and 01/2020. Participants allocated to the intervention group could choose from five modules according to their needs and interests. Outcome and process measures were collected with established scales, including emotional and cognitive strain (Irritation Scale), subjective well-being, psychosocial safety climate, and self-efficacy. Uptake of the intervention and fidelity was assessed using the SEEGEN Fidelity Scale. Multivariate general least squares ANOVA with allocation as interaction effect was used for analysis of moderators. Mediator analysis was done using ordinary least square regression. Qualitative data was collected via semi-structured interviews from a sub-sample, focusing on organisation, outcomes and practical applicability of the intervention. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis.
results415 hospital employees participated in this study. Average dose of the intervention across all modules was a close to two days. The effect of the intervention was moderated by some staff- and work-related variables, and mediated by fidelity to the intervention. Qualitative results of 23 participants confirmed and supplemented quantitative findings. The participants’ adjustments in terms of stress reduction related primarily to the individual level, in particular to changes in behaviour and the altered perception of work situations. Cross-study (data type) synthesis enabled a deeper understanding of the moderating variables of the intervention with regard to age of participants and the relevance of contextual conditions and confirmed the range of requirements of the participants depending on their respective work situation.
conclusionsThe high complexity of the intervention with different modules and target groups hindered implementation and effectiveness. A step backwards seems indicated, i.e. the further evaluation of smaller components of the intervention, added by theory development and refinement. TRAIL REGISTRATION: DKRS, DRKS00017249. Registered 08/10/2019, https://www.drks.de/DRKS00017249 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.