Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42652317›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026

Workplace Mental Health Programs for Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review.

Jimmy Jacob, Priyanka Malaiyappan, Vettrivel Arul, Taranjot Kaur, Shanthini Vijayaraman, Greety Antony, Kaviya Ramesh, Maria R Dasari, Balasankar Ganesan

Abstract readSystematic ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jimmy JacobDepartment of People and Culture, Institute of Health and Management, Melbourne 3051, Australia.
Priyanka MalaiyappanDepartment of Research and Development, Institute of Health and Management, Melbourne 3051, Australia.ORCID 0009-0003-9697-9099
Vettrivel ArulDepartment of Community Medicine, Research Methodology and Biostatistics, Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation (DU), Salem 636308, India.ORCID 0000-0002-2319-726X
Taranjot KaurSchool of Nursing, Institute of Health and Management, Melbourne 3051, Australia.
Shanthini VijayaramanDepartment of Homoeopathic Repertory and Case Taking, Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation (DU), Salem 636308, India.ORCID 0009-0005-0635-463X
Greety AntonySchool of Nursing, Institute of Health and Management, Melbourne 3051, Australia.
Kaviya RameshDepartment of Homoeopathic Repertory and Case Taking, Vinayaka Mission's Research Foundation (DU), Salem 636308, India.ORCID 0009-0001-9807-8599
Maria R DasariSchool of Social Work, Institute of Health and Management, Melbourne 3000, Australia.
Balasankar GanesanSchool of Public Health, Institute of Health and Management, Melbourne 3051, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9518-2844

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Burnout and psychological distress among healthcare workers (HCWs) have become a major workforce challenge, raising an important question: should responsibility for worker wellbeing rest primarily with individuals or with the organization of work itself? This systematic review evaluated workplace mental health programs for HCWs, comparing individual-level psychological interventions with organizational-level approaches. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 54 studies (2016-2026) from more than 18 countries were identified from approximately 7144 records through a PubMed/MEDLINE search. The included studies comprised 29 individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 cluster-randomized or stepped-wedge trials, and 14 additional non-randomized or contextual studies. ROBINS-I was applied only to the five eligible non-randomized intervention studies-the remaining non-randomized studies contributed contextual evidence and were not included in the ROBINS-I assessment. Here, 41 studies contributed effectiveness evidence, of which 34 (83%) reported a statistically significant improvement in at least 1 primary or key outcome, while 13 studies provided contextual, feasibility, or implementation evidence. Individual-level interventions dominated the evidence base (39/54; 72%). In contrast, organizational interventions were less frequently evaluated, rarely randomized, and showed mixed findings. Observational studies consistently identified workload, organizational trust, and other structural stressors as factors associated with burnout, although causal inferences remain limited. Risk of bias was substantial, with only 7 of 40 randomized trials (17.5%) rated as low risk. All five non-randomized intervention studies assessed using ROBINS-I were judged to have serious risk of bias. Overall, individual-level interventions were evaluated more frequently than organizational interventions and generally reported improvements in mental health outcomes. However, the evidence base was limited by the single-database search, variability in study quality, and methodological limitations. Further well-designed and adequately powered studies, particularly of organizational interventions, are needed to strengthen the evidence base.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalHealth PersonnelMental HealthWorkplaceHumansWorking Conditionsburnouthealthcare workersoccupational stresspsychological distressworkplace mental health

Identifiers

PMID42652317
PMCPMC13512533

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.