Workplace interventions that aim to improve employee health and well-being in male-dominated industries: a systematic review

Abstract

The published evidence on whether workplace health and well-being interventions are as effective in male-dominated industries compared with mixed-gender environments has not been synthesised. We performed a systematic review of workplace interventions aimed at improving employee health and well-being in male-dominated industries. We searched Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Database and Web of Science for articles describing workplace interventions in male-dominated industries that address employee health and well-being. The primary outcome was to determine the effectiveness of the intervention and the process evaluation (intervention delivery and adherence). To assess the quality of evidence, Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool was used. Due to the heterogeneity of reported outcomes, meta-analysis was performed for only some outcomes and a narrative synthesis with albatross plots was presented. After full-text screening, 35 studies met the eligibility criteria. Thirty-two studies delivered the intervention face-to-face, while two were delivered via internet and one using postal mail. Intervention adherence ranged from 50% to 97%, dependent on mode of delivery and industry. 17 studies were considered low risk of bias. Albatross plots indicated some evidence of positive associations, particularly for interventions focusing on musculoskeletal disorders. There was little evidence of intervention effect on body mass index and systolic or diastolic blood pressure. Limited to moderate evidence of beneficial effects was found for workplace health and well-being interventions conducted within male-dominated industries. Such interventions in the workplace can be effective, despite a different culture in male-dominated compared with mixed industries, but are dependent on delivery, industry and outcome. CRD42019161283.

“We are our own worst enemy”: a qualitative exploration of work-related stress in the construction industry

“…, 2016; Pieper et al. , 2019), including specifically within male-dominated industries (Hulls et al. , 2021).…”

“…, 2021). There are clear benefits to businesses in having a healthy, happy workforce, including increased productivity, improved employee retention, reduced sickness absence and greater employee resilience (Hulls et al. , 2021; Bevan, 2010).…”

“…, 2018) noted interventions must recognise industry characteristics and seek to address policy and environmental challenges, rather than simply relying on individuals to make changes. Similarly, a systematic review looking at workplace interventions within male-dominated industries concluded that those which engaged at multiple levels in the workplace appeared to be more effective (Hulls et al. , 2021).…”

“…Creating healthy workplaces could improve the health of a significant proportion of the adult population. Evidence indicates that workplace interventions can positively impact mental well-being (Joyce et al, 2016;Pieper et al, 2019), including specifically within male-dominated industries (Hulls et al, 2021). There are clear benefits to businesses in having a healthy, happy workforce, including increased productivity, improved employee retention, reduced sickness absence and greater employee resilience (Hulls et al, 2021;Bevan, 2010).…”

A Narrative Review of Peer-Led Positive Psychology Interventions: Current Evidence, Potential, and Future Directions

“…Despite this, there is a dearth of research on peer-led PPIs in the workplace [65]. A meta-analysis by Donaldson et al (2019) on general positive psychology interventions in the workplace found that PPIs had a small positive effect on improving desired workplace outcomes (such as job performance, job well-being, satisfaction, etc.…”