• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

PMID:35471804
Abstract

BACKGROUND

1.1. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) worked with Public Health England to develop a guideline scope. The guideline will update and replace the NICE guideline PH22: mental wellbeing at work [1]. It may also be used to update the NICE quality standard for healthy workplaces: improving employee mental and physical health and wellbeing. As stated in the final scope, the proportion of UK employees who are part-time, temporary, agency staff, on zero hours contracts or self-employed has increased since PH22 was published in 2009. In 2017, there was an independent review into how employers can better support the mental health of employees [2]. The review estimates that 15% of UK workers have an existing mental health condition and concludes that the UK faces significant mental health challenges at work. Better mental wellbeing and job satisfaction are associated with increased workplace performance and productivity [3]. However, many employers know the value of positive mental wellbeing but do not know how to promote it. In some cases, interventions aimed at increasing productivity might have harmful effects on an employee’s wellbeing and, as such, these consequences can also be important for decision making. NICE commissioned York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC) to carry out a systematic cost-effectiveness review and conduct an economic evaluation. This document outlines the objectives, methods and results of the economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1.2. The Public Health Advisory Committee (PHAC) prioritised questions in the NICE scope for further economic analysis. Research questions were not prioritised if there was sufficient cost-effectiveness evidence available in the published literature. Where cost-effectiveness evidence was insufficient, research questions were prioritised if there was updated and available effectiveness evidence since the publication of the previous guidelines or if economic modelling had previously not been conducted. The aim of this analysis was to conduct economic modelling and provide data on costs and benefits to employers who are considering implementing an intervention at work in order to prevent poor wellbeing, promote positive wellbeing and improve mental wellbeing. Additionally, cost-consequences analysis was used to assess any changes in employee outcomes. Outcomes from the economic model will help to inform the committee’s guidance decisions for questions prioritised in the NICE scope and provide an interactive online calculator to help inform employers implementing mental wellbeing interventions in the workplace. All research questions with an economic element from the NICE scope were prioritised for modelling. These are: What universal, organisational-level interventions, programmes, policies or strategies are effective and cost-effective at: –. Preventing poor mental wellbeing? –. Promoting positive mental wellbeing? –. Improving mental wellbeing? What interventions or strategies effectively and cost-effectively help employers and peers to recognise and engage employees who may require support for their mental wellbeing, or to identify periods of high risk within an organisation? What approaches to help managers to understand, promote and support mental wellbeing are effective and cost-effective? What approaches are effective and cost-effective to help managers to improve their knowledge and skills in recognising employees who experience or are at risk of poor mental wellbeing? What approaches are effective and cost-effective to help managers to improve their knowledge and skills in responding to mental wellbeing issues? What organisational-level approaches, programmes, strategies or policies targeted to employees who experience or who are identified as being at risk of experiencing poor mental wellbeing at work are effective and cost-effective at: –. Preventing poor mental wellbeing? –. Promoting positive mental wellbeing? –. Improving mental wellbeing? What universal, individual-level interventions or programmes are effective and cost-effective at: –. Preventing poor mental wellbeing? –. Promoting positive mental wellbeing? –. Improving mental wellbeing? What individual-level interventions targeted to employees who experience or are identified as being at risk of poor mental wellbeing at work are cost effective and: –. Preventing poor mental wellbeing? –. Promoting positive mental wellbeing? –. Improving mental wellbeing?

摘要

相似文献

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
OSHA Bloodborne Pathogen Standards职业安全与健康管理局血源性病原体标准
9
10
Impact of summer programmes on the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people: A systematic review.暑期项目对处境不利或“有风险”的年轻人的影响:一项系统综述。
Campbell Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 13;20(2):e1406. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1406. eCollection 2024 Jun.