PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews
Effectiveness of web- and mobile-based interventions for stress, job burnout, and depression in the workplace setting: systematic review with meta-analysis
Ewelina Smoktunowicz, Anna Rogala, Roman Cieslak, Charles C. Benight, Carolyn Yeager, Natalia Michalak
Ewelina Smoktunowicz, Anna Rogala, Roman Cieslak, Charles C. Benight, Carolyn Yeager, Natalia Michalak. Effectiveness of web- and mobile-based interventions for stress, job burnout, and depression in the workplace setting: systematic review with meta-analysis.
Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42017052712
Are web- and mobile-based interventions effective in managing stress in the workplace setting?
Are web- and mobile-based interventions effective in managing job burnout in the workplace setting?
Are web- and mobile-based interventions effective in managing depression in the workplace setting?
We will search the following electronic bibliographic databases: Cochrane Review Group’s Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, SpringerLink, Wiley Online Library, Scopus, Elsevier. We will also investigate the following sources: journals and other non-bibliographic database sources (conference abstracts and other grey literature), unpublished and ongoing studies that already have results, reference lists, relevant individuals and organizations, and clinical trials registers. There will be no language restrictions.
Types of study to be included
We will include all trials which meet the following inclusion criteria: 1) samples consist of working adults (18 and above), 2) at least one group of participants was exposed to web- or mobile-based intervention (excluding e-mail- and CD-based treatments, 3) the primary outcome is stress with job burnout and depression as optional outcomes.
Condition or domain being studied
Health indicators in the workplace setting. Primarily we are focusing on stress at work, with job burnout and depression as secondary outcomes.
Working adults (18 and above).
We will include studies in which at least one group of participants comprised of working adults was exposed to web- or mobile-based intervention in the occupational context (excluding e-mail- and CD-based treatments).
Examples include: traditional (face to face) therapy/training/intervention, other non web-based therapy/training/intervention (e.g., Skype, phone, e-mail), waitlist, active waitlist. However, we will also include those interventions that utilise only pre-post test design with no control groups.
The focus of the review is on the occupational context, however, it is not limited to a particular working group or occupational setting.
Stress. We will include various measurements of stress.
Job burnout and depression. We will include various measurements of job burnout and depression.
Data extraction, (selection and coding)
Data will be selected and extracted independently by two review team members. Any disagreement between them over the eligibility of particular studies will be resolved through discussion and, if necessary, consulting a third team member. Missing data will be requested from study authors (we plan to reach out twice: original request and one reminder to non-respondents). A standardized form for data extraction (applied in a previous meta-analysis carried out by this review team) will be used. Extracted information will include: general information (title, year of publication, authors, database, number of participants, country), list of intervention groups, measures of primary and secondary outcomes, information about participants, statistics indicating the effectiveness of interventions, reliability of the scales, information for assessment of the risk of bias, and information for subgroup analyses.
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
We will apply The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias which consists of six dimensions:
1) Randomisation sequence generation: was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
2) Treatment allocation concealment: was the allocated treatment adequately concealed from study participants and clinicians and other healthcare or research staff at the enrollment stage?
3) Blinding: were the personnel assessing outcomes and analysing data sufficiently blinded to the intervention allocation throughout the trial?
4) Completeness of outcome data: were participant exclusions, attrition and incomplete outcome data adequately addressed in the published report?
5) Selective outcome reporting: is there evidence of selective outcome reporting and might this have affected the study results?
6) Other sources of bias: was the trial apparently free of any other problems that could produce a high risk of bias?
Two review authors will independently assess the risk of bias in included studies.
Strategy for data synthesis
We will provide both a narrative and quantitative synthesis of the findings from the included studies, structured around the type of interventions, their duration, number and frequency of follow-ups, types of human support in the interventions, inclusion of theoretical models, types of intervention delivery, possible replications, quality of the studies, measurements of the outcomes, utilised tools, sample sizes, types of workplace settings, and demographic information about participants. We will focus on the effectiveness of the interventions in the pre-post test design and compare it to the effectiveness in control groups when possible.
Analysis of subgroups or subsets
If the necessary data are available, we will investigate whether the effectiveness of the interventions for stress, job burnout, and depression in the workplace settings will depend on:
1) Whether the intervention is theory–based
2) Primary intervention method that was used (e.g., CBT, problem solving)
3) Presence of human support (its type, duration, and frequency)
4) Mode of intervention delivery (web-based vs mobile-based vs combined)
5) Mode of content delivery (read-only vs interactive)
6) Type of control group (e.g., waitlist, active waitlist)
7) Follow-up measurements (short-term vs long-term effectiveness)
8) Type of trial (Randomized Controlled Trials vs non Randomized Controlled Trials)
A manuscript will be submitted to a leading journal in the field, and the results will be presented at conferences.
Contact details for further information
Chodakowska 19/31, 03-815 Warsaw, Poland
Organisational affiliation of the review
SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Trauma, Health, and Hazards Center, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, US
Dr Ewelina Smoktunowicz, Department of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland Ms Anna Rogala, Department of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland Professor Roman Cieslak, Department of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland; Trauma, Health, and Hazards Center, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, US Professor Charles C. Benight, Department of Psychology and theTrauma, Health, and Hazards Center, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, US Ms Carolyn Yeager, Department of Psychology and theTrauma, Health, and Hazards Center, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, US Ms Natalia Michalak, Department of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland
Anticipated or actual start date
01 December 2016
Anticipated completion date
30 June 2017
Project funded by the Department of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland. Project number: WP/2016/B/21.
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
PROSPERO This information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in good faith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, any associated files or external websites.