Employee well‐being outcomes from individual‐level mental health interventions: Cross‐sectional evidence from the United Kingdom

Abstract

Initiatives that promote mental well‐being are formally recommended for all British workers, with many practices targeting change in individual workers' resources. While the existing evidence is generally positive about these interventions, disagreement is increasing because of concerns that individual‐level interventions do not engage with working conditions. Contributing to the debate, this article uses survey data (N = 46,336 workers in 233 organisations) to compare participants and nonparticipants in a range of common individual‐level well‐being interventions, including resilience training, mindfulness and well‐being apps. Across multiple subjective well‐being indicators, participants appear no better off. Results are interpreted through the job demands–resources theory and selection bias in cross‐sectional results is interrogated. Overall, results suggest interventions are not providing additional or appropriate resources in response to job demands.

Measuring student and staff mental wellbeing at an Australian university: Findings and methodological lessons from a multi-level, multi-wave study

“…In the continued aftermath of the pandemic, there are very real prospects of further systemic pressures upon the Australian university sector -even as it struggles with a long-term identity crisis and associated health risks (Baum et al, 2022). Given these meso-and macro-level issues, wellbeing interventions focusing on individuals -and particularly those also administered as once-off -are insufficient and may even carry indication of harm (Fleming, 2024).…”

Research Findings Journalists Cannot Resist: A Tale of Three Mental Health and Well-Being Studies

“…I’ll reference them now because these three studies are all one and the same! The actual study title is: “Employee well-being outcomes from individual-level mental health interventions: Cross-sectional evidence from the United Kingdom.” 12 I would likely never have come across this research were it not for the New York Times article: “Workplace Wellness Programs Have Little Benefit, Study Finds.” 13 Though all of the content from my renditions of studies one and two were contained in the research paper the Times describes, they were findings largely ignored as was the troublesome selection bias I inserted into my rendition of the third “little benefit study.” Could this negatively weighted reportage on the research be due to the paper’s author downplaying these study limitations? Not at all.…”

“…18,19 Fleming's intervention study is open access which makes it easy to commend it to our readers so you can draw your own conclusions. 20 I am reticent about recommending you read the New York Times rendition of the study but I do think the reader's comments section after the article, with over 300 comments, is well worth a skim-through. 21 Consumer research suggests those who take the time to comment are more likely to be negative than positive about their experiences.…”

David Oliver: Work wellness programmes aren’t the key to improving NHS morale or retention

“…But, reading Spicer’s article, you realise that this is just window dressing. He cited research on initiatives in the wider workplace beyond the NHS, showing that interventions such as stress management classes, wellbeing apps, and mindfulness classes made no difference to workers’ wellbeing, job satisfaction, or sense of pressure 1516. He referenced empirical evidence identifying 10 of the most common workplace sources of stress leading to ill health—including shift work, long working hours, job insecurity, conflicts between work and life, low job control, high work demands, and a lack of support 17.…”