CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 100Workplace Health and Well-beingHealth Policy Implementation ScienceOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

Implementing practices focused on workplace health and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review

Open access
Daniels, Kevin, Watson, David, Nayani, Rachel, Tregaskis, Olga, Hogg, Martin, Etuknwa, Abasiama, Semkina, Antonina·2021·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113888
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

RATIONALE: Workplace health and wellbeing practices (WHWPs) often fail to improve psychological health or wellbeing because of implementation failure. Thus, implementation should be evaluated to improve the effectiveness of WHWPs. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to identify critical success factors for WHWP implementation and gaps in the evidence. Doing so provides a platform for future theoretical development. METHODS: We reviewed 74 separate studies that assessed the implementation of WHWPs and their effects on psychological health or psychological wellbeing. Most studies were from advanced industrial Western democracies (71). Intervention types included primary (e.g., work redesign, 37 studies; and health behavior change, 8 studies), secondary (e.g., mindfulness training, 11 studies), tertiary (e.g., focused on rehabilitation, 9 studies), and multifocal (e.g., including components of primary and secondary, 9 studies). RESULTS: Tangible changes preceded improvements in health and wellbeing, indicating intervention success cannot be attributed to non-specific factors. Some interventions had beneficial effects through mechanisms not planned as part of the intervention. Three factors were associated with successful WHWP implementation: continuation, learning, and effective governance. CONCLUSIONS: The review indicates future research could focus on how organizations manage conflict between WHWP implementation and existing organizational processes, and the dynamic nature of organizational contexts that affect and are affected by WHWP implementation. This systematic review is registered [PROSPERO: the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42019119656].

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113888

Cites

149 of 149 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Continuous involvement by management is crucial for successful implementation.

    “Furthermore, continuous involvement by management is crucial for successful implementation [82].”

    From Advantages and disadvantages of mobile applications for workplace health promotion: A scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [82]

    The Conclusions identify continuity of implementation effort as a critical success factor and say governance structures including senior managers may encourage positive attitudes. But section 3.3.7 says senior management support was not critical in some cases and that its relationship with implementation is unclear. The review therefore does not establish that continuous management involvement is crucial. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Saksvik, P.Ø., Olaniyan, O.S., Lysklett, K., Lien, M., Bjerke, L., 2015. A Process Evaluation of a Salutogenic Intervention Scandinavian Psychologist, vol. 2, p. e8.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Daniels, K., Watson, D., Nayani, R., Tregaskis, O., Hogg, M., Etuknwa, A., & Semkina, A.
Affiliations
University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Daniels, Kevin
ORCID
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-05
Volume
277
Pages
113888
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113888
OpenAlex
W3147454186
Cited by
92
References
149
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 4
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
implementation success factors, psychological well-being, mental health, job redesign, mindfulness training, rehabilitation, health behavior change, organizational governance, organizational context, implementation evaluation
MeSH terms
Humans, Learning, Mental Health, Health Behavior, Workplace

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review