Well-being through learning: a systematic review of learning interventions in the workplace and their impact on well-being

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flowchart of the search process for the review.

Table 1. Factors considered for rating the strength of the evidence.

GRADE Factors which may limit the strength of the evidence: Study limitations Inconsistency of results Indirectness of evidence Imprecision Reporting bias Factors which may enhance the strength of the evidence: A very large magnitude of effect A dose–response gradient All plausible biases would reduce an apparent treatment effect CERQual Methodological limitations of the qualitative studies contributing to a review finding Relevance to the review question of the studies contributing to a review finding Coherence of the review finding Adequacy of data supporting a review finding.

Table 2. Summary of evidence statements and grade ratings.

Evidence statement	Quality rating and justification
1: Interventions focused on developing personal resources for well-being are effective regardless of the specific focus of the training. 22 studies (see supplementary Table 2(a) and Figure 3(a) in the supplementary material document for further details on individual studies).	Strong evidence – A high number of RCTs and studies showing positive results. However, many had relatively small sample sizes and lacked long-term follow-ups. Self-selection into the intervention group by individuals most likely to benefit and several studies which targeted at risk or vulnerable groups limit confidence in generalizability of finding.
2: Training focused on developing professional capabilities can produce positive well-being effects. Although training focused on developing professional capabilities may be more likely to have no effect rather than a positive impact on well-being, it is unlikely to have a negative impact. 10 studies (see supplementary Table 2(b) and Figure 3(b) in the supplementary material document for further details on individual studies).	Initial evidence – Although adverse effects are unlikely, the likelihood of positive well-being outcomes is too uncertain. More studies with larger samples and multiple and longer-term follow-ups needed to unpack issues around transfer and implementation of training.
3: Leadership training can be effective in improving well-being. Group-based learning which is more interactive is most likely to be effective for this form of training. 6 studies (see supplementary Table 2(c) and Figure 3(c) in the supplementary material document for further details on individual studies).	Initial evidence – Inconsistent results and a small number of studies to support this finding. More work needed to understand transfer of training to supervisors themselves and their subordinates. Issues with implementation and uptake of training in some studies could limit well-being effects.
4: There is insufficient evidence to conclude how organizational-level learning interventions impact on well-being 3 studies (see supplementary Table 2(d) and Figure 3(d) in the supplementary material document for further details on individual studies).	Very low-quality evidence – Further research needed. Very few studies exploring organizational learning and the complexity of interventions addressing this. Measuring the impact of organizational-level learning requires more empirical and conceptual work.
5: Learning processes that are predominantly online tend to be less effective than more extensive forms of learning in producing positive well-being outcomes 8 studies (see supplementary tables and Figure 3(e) in the supplementary material document for further details on individual studies).	Initial evidence – All studies were RCTs, but not consistent in their results. Studies showing no effect identify low uptake of training, partially due to learning process, and other factors such as organizational change and support of training as potential barriers. More work needed to understand the barriers to learning.