ABSTRACT

The scientific literature on workplace interventions that target individual-level determinants of mental health for primary or secondary prevention is mixed, with many studies failing to show statistically significant, sizeable effects. A methodological characteristic that may explain these mixed findings is fidelity, a multidimensional construct that captures the extent to which an intervention is implemented as intended, in a standardized manner. In this narrative review, we examined the extent to which workplace mental health intervention studies try to enhance or measure the twelve different dimensions of fidelity that have been identified. We conducted comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Following review, 370 articles were selected for inclusion, of which only 21% explicitly mentioned fidelity. About two-thirds of the articles considered less than half of all relevant fidelity dimensions. Most studies tried to enhance rather than measure fidelity. Only a handful of included studies (n=7, 2%) measured half or more of all relevant fidelity dimensions. Some fidelity dimensions (e.g. theoretical) were considered less often than others (e.g. receipt and enactment). Our review shows that fidelity is insufficiently considered in current workplace mental health literature. We discuss implications for internal and external validity, scalability, and directions for future research.

摘要

关于针对个人层面心理健康决定因素进行初级或二级预防的工作场所干预的科学文献是混合的，许多研究未能显示出具有统计意义的显着影响。可以解释这些混合结果的一个方法学特征是保真度，这是一种多维结构，它以标准化的方式捕捉按预期实施干预的程度。在这篇叙述性评论中，我们检查了工作场所心理健康干预研究试图增强或衡量已确定的十二个不同维度的忠诚度的程度。我们对 MEDLINE、Embase 和 PsycINFO 进行了全面搜索。经过审查，选择了 370 篇文章纳入其中，其中只有 21% 明确提到了保真度。大约三分之二的文章考虑了不到所有相关保真度维度的一半。大多数研究试图提高而不是衡量保真度。只有少数纳入的研究 (n=7, 2%) 测量了所有相关保真度维度的一半或更多。一些保真度维度（例如理论）被考虑的频率低于其他维度（例如接收和制定）。我们的评论表明，当前的工作场所心理健康文献中没有充分考虑忠诚度。我们讨论了对内部和外部有效性、可扩展性和未来研究方向的影响。理论）被认为比其他人更少（例如接收和制定）。我们的评论表明，当前的工作场所心理健康文献中没有充分考虑忠诚度。我们讨论了对内部和外部有效性、可扩展性和未来研究方向的影响。理论）被认为比其他人更少（例如接收和制定）。我们的评论表明，当前的工作场所心理健康文献中没有充分考虑忠诚度。我们讨论了对内部和外部有效性、可扩展性和未来研究方向的影响。