Evaluation of Headtorch WORKS as a workplace intervention for improved support and understanding of co-workers with poor mental health and well-being

ABSTRACT

Promoting mental health in the workplace and creating a supportive environment for those experiencing poor mental health are important strategies that can be implemented by workplaces. The present research evaluates the effectiveness of Headtorch WORKS, a mental health and well-being intervention consisting of three online episodes, including original filmed drama and specialist documentary, intercut with a variety of open and closed questions. To evaluate the Headtorch WORKS intervention, a number of psychological measures were developed and adapted for a workplace context. These measures examined the topics of social distance, interaction, stigma, empathy and presenteeism. Data were obtained from fifty-five employees from six participating companies, with this process taking six to nine weeks for each company. Twenty-nine employees were part of the experimental group and twenty-six were in the control condition. Data from an additional 122 undergraduate students and 130 employees were used to examine the measures and to evaluate their psychometric properties. The main study took the form of a pre/post- design where individuals were tested before and after the Headtorch WORKS intervention. Results showed no significant effects on our measures of stigma, empathy and presenteeism, but we did find improvements in our measures of social distance and interaction.

KEYWORDS:

• Mental health
• intervention
• social distance
• workplace
• employee

Author Note

We would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their help with improving the paper for publication. We also thank all the organisations and individuals who participated in the study to make the research possible. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Frank E. Pollick, School of Psychology, University of Glasgow, 62 Hillhead Street, Glasgow, G12 8QB. E-mail: [email protected]

Disclosure of Interest

The authors report no conflict of interest. The research was funded by a grant from Innovate, UK.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

1. The Half-day ratio was a series of questions about how many days off a person could have when they have a variety of different needs for flexible working. However, this proved difficult to analyse due to participants’ varied interpretations of the questions, so we decided not to analyse these questions further.

Additional information

Funding

This project was supported by Innovate UK. Support for GKT was provided by the ESRC, (ES/P000681/1, Project Number: 1943784)