
==== Front
Occup Med (Lond)
Occup Med (Lond)
occmed
Occupational Medicine (Oxford, England)
0962-7480
1471-8405
Oxford University Press UK

38990655
10.1093/occmed/kqae051
kqae051
Original Papers
AcademicSubjects/MED00640
Line manager training and organizational approaches to supporting well-being
Dulal-Arthur T School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3662-052X
Hassard J Queen’s University Business School, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

Bourke J Department of Economics, Spatial & Regional Economics Research Centre, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

Roper S Enterprise Research Centre, Warwick University Business School, Warwick University, Coventry, UK

Wishart M Enterprise Research Centre, Warwick University Business School, Warwick University, Coventry, UK

Belt V Enterprise Research Centre, Warwick University Business School, Warwick University, Coventry, UK

Bartle C School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Leka S Centre for Organisational Health and Well-Being, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Pahl N Society for Occupational Medicine, London, UK

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1736-7506
Thomson L School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3080-2306
Blake H School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, UK

Correspondence to: H. Blake, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2HA, UK. E-mail: holly.blake@nottingham.ac.uk
7 2024
11 7 2024
11 7 2024
74 6 416422
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Employee mental health and well-being (MH&WB) is critical to the productivity and success of organizations. Training line managers (LMs) in mental health plays an important role in protecting and enhancing employee well-being, but its relationship with other MH&WB practices is under-researched.

Aims

To determine whether organizations offering LM training in mental health differ in the adoption of workplace- (i.e. primary/prevention-focused) and worker-directed (including both secondary/resiliency-focused and tertiary/remedial-focused) interventions to those organizations not offering LM training and to explore changes in the proportions of activities offered over time.

Methods

Secondary analysis of enterprise data from computer-assisted telephone interview surveys. The analysis included data from organizations in England across 4 years (2020: n = 1900; 2021: n = 1551; 2022: n = 1904; 2023: n = 1902).

Results

Offering LM training in mental health was associated with organizations’ uptake of primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-level MH&WB activities across all 4 years. The proportion of organizations offering primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level interventions increased over time. On average, tertiary-level activities were most adopted (2020: 80%; 2021: 81%; 2022: 84%; 2023: 84%), followed by primary-level activities (2020: 66%; 2021: 72%; 2022: 72%; 2023: 73%) and secondary-level activities (2020: 62%; 2021: 60%; 2022: 61%; 2023: 67%).

Conclusions

Offering LM training in mental health is associated with the adoption of other MH&WB practices by organizations. Suggesting that organizations that are committed to the mental health agenda are more likely to take a holistic approach (including both worker and workplace strategies) to promoting workforce mental health, rather than providing LM training in isolation.

Training line managers (LMs) in workforce mental health has benefits for individuals and organizations, but its relationship with other mental health and well-being (MH&WB) practices is under-researched. Secondary analysis of data collected from enterprise representatives between 2020 and 2023 revealed that organizations offering LM training were more likely to adopt both worker- and workplace-directed MH&WB practices. The adoption of all MH&WB practices increased year on year, with remedial-focused interventions being the most adopted throughout this 4-year period.

Economic and Social Research Council 10.13039/501100000269 ES/V002740/1
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

National surveys show population declines in personal well-being across the UK [1]. Over the past few years, there has been an increase in mental health challenges among working adults during and after the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [2]. From a public health perspective, the prevention and management of mental ill health through the workplace setting is an important strategy for improving population health [3]. From an economic perspective, for those who are vocationally active, mental ill health is now a leading cause of workplace sickness absence, accounting for around 17 million working days lost each year [4], costing around £56 billion annually [5]. This has implications for the productivity of employees and a high economic impact on organizations [6,7]. Therefore, there are clear public health and economic arguments for promoting mental health and well-being (MH&WB) at work. Despite the rising prevalence of mental ill health, many employers are still unaware of their critical role in supporting the mental health of their employees [5,8], with many employers having limited provisions or policies in place to promote employee psychological well-being [9]. We hypothesize that organizations that offer training to their line managers (LMs) in MH&WB may offer more, or a different profile of, MH&WB policies and practices compared to organizations that do not offer training. Potentially due to an increased awareness and knowledge about workforce well-being amongst their managers who may subsequently implement them. However, there is currently no evidence to demonstrate this.

Workplace mental health interventions are typically categorized as primary (prevention-focused activities focused on reducing or better-managing work stressors through job design and management practices), secondary (employee-focused activities focused on bolstering their resilience and coping strategies), or tertiary (remedial- and curative-focused activities) [10]. A holistic approach integrating all three levels of intervention, which targets both workplace- (e.g. primary) and worker-directed strategies (e.g. secondary and tertiary interventions), is advocated as the best practice [11,12]. However, primary prevention is of particular importance to maximize employee health and productivity [12,13]. The importance of prevention-orientated approaches is strongly emphasized in both national guidance (e.g. National Institute for Health and Care Guidance [11]) and international standards (e.g. ISO 45003 standards on psychological health and safety at work [14]), with reference to the central and ongoing role played by LMs throughout the process.

Key learning points

What is already known about this subject:

Improving employee well-being is important for the overall performance of organizations.

Line managers play a crucial role in supporting employees’ well-being and are strategically positioned to identify early signs of mental health issues.

Providing line manager training in mental health is a recommended strategy for enhancing employee mental health and well-being.

What this study adds:

Positive mental health and well-being practices increased throughout the COVID-19 pandemic—the proportion of organizations offering primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level interventions has increased year on year.

Positive mental health and well-being practices cluster together—those organizations offering line manager training are more likely to offer a range of primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level interventions than organizations not offering this training.

Among organizations offering line manager training in mental health, tertiary-level intervention activities are the most frequently adopted, followed by primary- and then secondary-level mental health and well-being practices.

What impact this may have on practice or policy:

Organizations should invest in line manager training in mental health as part of their broader mental health strategy as a primary preventative initiative.

Organizations should aim for a comprehensive approach that comprises the implementation of primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level mental health and well-being practices.

Research is needed to quantify the specific impacts of line manager training on organizational-level outcomes, such as sickness absence and presenteeism.

LMs’ behaviours and wider management practices are a determinant of employee well-being [15–17]. It is, therefore, crucial to equip LMs with the knowledge, skills and abilities to (i) effectively support, guide and promote the MH&WB of their direct reports (people they manage); (ii) ensure they can design and manage people’s work to minimize work-related stress and (iii) cultivate a supportive and psychologically safe work environment. There is growing evidence that the necessary knowledge, skills and behavioural competencies needed to execute these tasks and roles by LMs can be learned and enhanced through targeted training programmes [18–20]. However, a survey conducted by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health—prior to the COVID-19 pandemic—found that only 43% of organizations offered mental health training for their managers [21]. From 2020, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic amplified workforce mental health risks [22]. While there are interventions being developed to support workforce mental health [23–26], the provision of LM training in mental health remains sub-optimal. Although data from large-scale employer surveys demonstrate that the proportion of organizations offering LM training has increased over time (to 59% in 2023), 41% of organizations still do not provide LM training in mental health [27].

There is little information available on the context in which LM training in mental health is delivered in organizations that provide it. The aim of this study, therefore, is to explore whether (or not) LM training initiatives contribute to a wider organizational strategy targeting employee well-being, which draws on a variety of workplace health promotion approaches and initiatives. To address this aim, the research question is: ‘Do organizations offering LM training differ in their adoption of primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level MH&WB practices, compared to those that do not?’.

Methods

A secondary analysis of longitudinal, anonymized survey data from organizations in England was conducted. The data were derived from computer-assisted telephone interview surveys collected over 4 years, under a broader project ‘Mental health and well-being practices, outcomes, and productivity: A causal analysis’. Data were collected from employer representatives (business managers) in 2020 (1900 firms), 2021 (1551 firms), 2022 (1904 firms) and 2023 (1902 firms). Of these, 118 organizations participated in the survey for all 4 years. Throughout this study, the predictor variable was ‘LM training in mental health’, measured as a single, dichotomous variable (coded: no = 0, yes = 1). All outcome variables were measured as categorical variables. To explore the relationships between our predictor variable and outcomes, we conducted probit regression analyses to determine the probability of specific outcomes occurring based on the presence or absence of LM training in mental health. This allowed for a deeper understanding of how LM training relates to the use of other MH&WB practices by surveyed organizations. The analyses controlled for age of the organization (0–10 years, 11–20 years, more than 20 years), sector (Production, Construction, Wholesale/Retail, Hospitality, Business Services and Other Services) and size of the organization (micro/small:1–49; medium: 50–249; large: 250+ employees). The MH&WB practices offered by organizations were classified into primary, secondary and tertiary (File 1, available as Supplementary data at Occupational Medicine Online) as conceptually defined by the public health paradigm [28,29].

Results

We observed that organizations with LM training in mental health adopted more primary-level MH&WB practices compared to organizations without such training provisions (Table 1). This trend strengthened over the 4 years, evidenced by an increase in the proportions of firms offering LM training from 2020 to 2023 (2020: n = 413; 2021: n = 371; 2022: n = 497; 2023: n = 576) (Figure 1).

Table 1. Probit analysis of LM training in mental health associated with primary-level MH&WBs

DVs	2020 (826 firms)	2021 (838 firms)	2022 (962 firms)	2023 (963 firms)	
P1. A mental health plan	β0.849***
LR chi2 103.864
Log likelihood −122.561	β0.830***
LR chi2 99.756***
Log likelihood
−106.019	β0.738
LR chi2 93.186
Log likelihood
−128.806	β0.858***
LR chi2 112.095
Log likelihood
−127.528	
P2. A health and well-being lead at Board or senior level	β0.757***
LR chi2 77.303
Log likelihood −136.870	β0.593***
LR chi2 68.612
Log likelihood
−105.894	β0.722
LR chi2 116.723
Log likelihood
−133.211	β0.995***
LR chi2 150.233
Log likelihood
−117.462	
P3. Use data to monitor employee health and well-being	β0.225*
LR chi2 42.222*
Log likelihood −140.649	β0.574***
LR chi2 72.360
Log likelihood
−113.648	β0.422
LR chi2 67.856
Log likelihood
−133.239	β0.450***
LR chi2 60.938
Log likelihood
−133.995	
P4. Internal and external reporting of your approach to mental health	β0.474***
LR chi2 43.999
Log likelihood −135.150	β0.684***
LR chi2 85.218
Log likelihood
−114.934	β0.660
LR chi2 86.506
Log likelihood
−126.155	β0.712***
LR chi2 92.692
Log likelihood
−123.434	
P5. A budget for mental health and well-being activities	β0.442***
LR chi2 46.284
Log likelihood −123.069	β0.386***
LR chi2 44.084
Log likelihood
−102.342	β0.688***
LR chi2 96.664
Log likelihood
−125.725	β0.553***
LR chi2 67.772
Log likelihood
−119.435	
P6. Risk assessments/stress audits	β0.242**
LR chi2 20.300*
Log likelihood –127.340	β0.553
LR chi2 52.740
Log likelihood
−109.225	β0.454***
LR chi2 45.863
Log likelihood
−126.965	β0.593***
LR chi2 63.998
Log likelihood
−124.289	
P7. Encourage open conversations about mental health in the workplace	β0.606**
LR chi2 20.707*
Log likelihood −46.202	β0.605**
LR chi2 37.367***
Log likelihood
−40.714	β0.721
LR chi2 35.112
Log likelihood
−57.725	β0.643
LR chi2 37.389
Log likelihood
−56.783	
P8. Reviews of staff workloads	N/C	β0.412***
LR chi2 38.946
Log likelihood
−95.025	β0.454***
LR chi2 48.828
Log likelihood
−123.168	β0.457***
LR chi2 44.623
Log likelihood
−105.517	
P9. Make appropriate workplace adjustments to those who need them to support their mental health	β0.324
LR chi2 15.261
Log likelihood −47.421	β0.540
LR chi2 21.291
Log likelihood
−59.378	β0.901
LR chi2 50.141
Log likelihood
−49.353	β0.567***
LR chi2 37.435
Log likelihood
−58.642	
P10. Ensure all staff have a regular conversation about their health and well-being with their manager	β0.342**
LR chi2 58.193
Log likelihood −112.132	β0.481***
LR chi2 59.130
Log likelihood
−91.725	β0.661
LR chi2 110.301
Log likelihood
−102.151	β0.459***
LR chi2 55.004
Log likelihood
−101.628	
P11. Have employee mental health champions	β0.719***
LR chi2 108.580
Log likelihood
−117.790	β0.778***
LR chi2 133.139
Log likelihood
−123.329	β0.799***
LR chi2 139.973
Log likelihood
−122.047	β0.814***
LR chi2 142.627
Log likelihood
−123.649	
N/C = not captured. LR chi2 = Likelihood ratio chi-square. Size, sector, and age of organizations are included as controls in all estimations.

*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.

Figure 1. Primary-level intervention activities in organizations offering LM training in MH&WB (2020–2023).

On average, organizations that offered LM training in mental health were more likely to adopt secondary-level MH&WB practices compared to organizations without LM training provisions (Table 2). Although the proportion of firms offering some of the secondary MH&WB practices increased from 2020 to 2023, there was an overall decrease in the proportion of firms offering general health promotion interventions including s1 ‘Support with physical activity such as gym memberships, cycle to work schemes’ and s2 ‘Supplying healthy food and drinks’ (Figure 2).

Table 2. Probit analysis of LM training in mental health associated with secondary-level MH&WBs

DVs	2020 (826 firms)	2021 (838 firms)	2022 (962 firms)	2023 (963 firms)	
S1. Support with physical activity such as gym memberships, cycle to work schemes	β0.353***
LR chi2 88.248
Log likelihood
−117.339	β0.171
LR chi2 68.051
Log likelihood
−125.677	β0.333***
LR chi2 97.958
Log likelihood
−130.494	β0.315***
LR chi2 77.704
Log likelihood
−124.575	
S2. Supplying healthy food and drinks	β0.192
LR chi2 31.399
Log likelihood
−118.948	β0.281**
LR chi2 76.003***
Log likelihood
−127.599	β0.235***
LR chi2 53.816
Log likelihood
−131.633	β0.241**
LR chi2 69.302
Log likelihood
−130.236	
S3. Provide regular opportunities for informal social contact for remote workers	N/C	β0.213*
LR chi2 30.621**
Log likelihood
−112.107	β0.270**
LR chi2 68.297***
Log likelihood
−122.070	β0.473*
LR chi2 10.909 (P = 0.365)
Log likelihood
−50.674	
S4. Training aimed at building personal resilience	β0.632***
LR chi2 81.347
Log likelihood
−113.115	β0.721***
LR chi2 99.676***
Log likelihood
−119.168	β0.755***
LR chi2 99.735
Log likelihood
−123.847	β0.711
LR chi2 93.078
Log likelihood
−121.840	
S5. Financial well-being advice	β0.444***
LR chi2 32.414
Log likelihood
−124.205	β0.358***
LR chi2 62.422
Log likelihood
−124.030	β0.496***
LR chi2 68.844
Log likelihood
−129.078	β0.556***
LR chi2 86.178
Log likelihood
−128.021	
S6. Awareness raising for staff on mental health issues	β 1.109***
LR chi2 161.334
Log likelihood
−104.182	β0.939***
LR chi2 125.462
Log likelihood
−96.548	β0.946***
LR chi2 167.966
Log likelihood
−106.745	β 1.129***
LR chi2 193.086
Log likelihood
−108.650	
N/C = not captured. DVs = dependent variables. LR chi2 = Likelihood ratio chi-square.

*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.

Figure 2. Secondary-level intervention activities in organizations offering LM training in MH&WB (2020–2023).

On average, organizations that offered LM training in mental health were more likely to adopt tertiary-level MH&WB practices compared to organizations without LM training provisions (Table 3). The proportion of firms offering these activities also increased from 2020 to 2023 or 2021 to 2023, where applicable (Figure 3).

Table 3. Probit analysis of LM training in mental health associated with tertiary-level MHWBs

DVs	2020
(826 firms)	2021
(838 firms)	2022
(962 firms)	2023
(963 firms)	
T1. In-house MH support and signposting to other services	β0.784***
LR chi2 99.356
Log likelihood
−102.512	β0.606***
LR chi2 104.804
Log likelihood
−98.702	β0.829***
LR chi2 139.387
Log likelihood
−106.141	β0.980***
LR chi2 157.511
Log likelihood
−93.751	
T2. Access to counselling support	N/C	β0.572***
LR chi2 87.235
Log likelihood
−109.354	β0.635***
LR chi2 101.919
Log likelihood
−115.418	β0.525***
LR chi2 87.867
Log likelihood
−102.585	
T3. Training and support for those returning to work	N/C	β0.465***
LR chi2 58.564
Log likelihood
−113.247	β0.732***
LR chi2 112.463
Log likelihood
−111.429	β0.741
LR chi2 108.555
Log likelihood
−107.213	
N/C = not captured. DVs = dependent variables. LR chi2 = Likelihood ratio chi-square.

*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.

Figure 3. Tertiary-level intervention activities in organizations offering LM training in MH&WB (2020–2023).

Finally, the average proportions of primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level MH&WB practices were computed to determine which intervention levels were most adopted by organizations over the years. Overall, tertiary-level MH&WB practices were most adopted (2020: 80%; 2021: 81%; 2022: 84%; 2023: 84%), followed by primary-level MH&WB practices (2020: 66%; 2021: 72%; 2022: 72%; 2023: 73%) and then, secondary-level MH&WB practices (2020: 62%; 2021: 60%; 2022: 61%; 2023: 67%).

Discussion

This study explored the relationship between LM training in mental health and the adoption of primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level MH&WB practices. Our findings show that LM training was significantly associated with MH&WB practices across all three levels. For organizations that offer LM training, there was a consistent increase in the proportion of primary- (prevention-focused) and tertiary (curative/remedial)-level MH&WB practices offered across the 4 years. However, there was some variation in the proportion of secondary-level MH&WB practices offered, with some increasing and others, in contrast, decreasing over time. Among the three intervention levels, tertiary interventions were adopted most frequently, followed by primary and then secondary interventions.

A strength of this study is that it provides a comprehensive analysis of how a large sample of UK organizations adapted their MH&WB practices over several years, from immediately before (January 2020), to the end (May 2023) of a pandemic. The focus on LM training in mental health presents a valuable contribution by highlighting the overall benefits of providing this training to the wider organizational customs and practices. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between LM training in mental health and the broader use of primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level MH&WB practices by organizations. However, the use of unbalanced panel data in the analyses limits our ability to capture the genuine ‘longitudinal’ effects of LM training on the organizational adoption of MH&WB practices. Due to the variations in the number of observations at each time point, there is reduced precision in capturing the temporal dynamics of the relationships being investigated. While our measures capture the presence/absence of various MH&WB practices (including LM training) and demonstrate how they are related, further research is required to determine the effectiveness of these practices on individual- and organizational-level outcomes.

Our study contributes to the growing body of literature which highlights the importance of providing mental health training for LMs in the workplace [15,18,20,29]. While current intervention studies are exploring the impacts of LM training on individual employees and their LMs (e.g. Total Worker Health Intervention [25]; Managing Minds at Work [23,26]), our study explores patterns of well-being intervention at an organizational level which, to our knowledge, have not previously been documented. The establishment of a relationship between the provision of LM training in mental health and other positive MH&WB policies and practices suggests that the training of LMs in mental health is associated with a broader organizational commitment to employee well-being at all three intervention levels. Essentially, we observed that positive MH&WB practices cluster together. Further research is needed to explore the types of intervention (i.e. their content/nature, dose, duration and frequency) that are more, or less, effective for improving workforce well-being and indices of business performance.

The fact that we identified increases in the adoption of MH&WB practices over recent years is promising given the rise in mental health problems in working adults during and after the pandemic [30]. This suggests a greater awareness of employers relating to mental health at work, which manifests in actions to mitigate or manage this growing trend. The association between the provision of LM training and other MH&WB practices perhaps indicates that raising managers’ awareness, knowledge, confidence and skills relating to workforce mental health may act as a catalyst for the implementation of positive, health-focused practices across the organization.

A notable finding from this study is the increasing proportions of tertiary-level interventions used by organizations over the 4 years. Previous research suggests that organizations may opt for tertiary-level interventions due to the perceived immediate benefits and tangibility of support services [31]. However, while these interventions are important in offering support to employees already suffering from mental health issues, their effects are not as long-lasting as primary and secondary interventions—as they do not address the root causes of the issue [32]. Hence, scholars argue that the best approach for addressing mental health issues at work (e.g. work-related stress) is a balanced, holistic approach that combines all three intervention levels [33]. Future research in this area should focus on quantifying the specific impacts of LM training on organizational-level outcomes, such as sickness absence and presenteeism. This evidence would help to inform employers’ investment decisions relating to MH&WB at work, which will ultimately impact employee health and well-being.

Supplementary Material

kqae051_suppl_Supplementary_Material

Competing interests

N.P. is the CEO of the Society of Occupational Medicine. In this role, he has no editorial influence on the Journal although the S.O.M. financially manages the Journal. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Funding

The data used here were originally collected as part of an Economic and Social Research Council funded project ‘Workplace mental-health and well-being practices, outcomes and productivity’ (grant number: ES/W010216/1). This secondary analysis project ‘Mental health at work: a longitudinal exploration of line manager training provisions and impacts on productivity, individual and organizational outcomes’ was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [The Productivity Institute: grant number: ES/V002740/1].
==== Refs
References

1. Office for National Statistics (ONS). Personal Well-Being in the UK: April 2022 to March 2023. London: ONS, 2023. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/bulletins/measuringnationalwellbeing/april2022tomarch2023 (7 May 2024, date last accessed).
2. Edge R , PlaatD, ParsonsV et al . Changing patterns of sickness absence among healthcare workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Public Health (Oxf) 2021;44 :e45–e50. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdab341
3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Guidelines. 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/nice-guidelines (7 May 2024, date last accessed).
4. Health and Safety Executive. Work-Related Stress, Anxiety, or Depression Statistics in Great Britain, 2022. London: HSE, 2022.
5. Deloitte. Poor Mental Health Costs UK Employers up to £56 Billion a Year. 2023. https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/about/press-room/poor-mental-health-costs-uk-employers-51-billion-a-year-for-employees.html (30 June 2024, date last accessed).
6. Ramos-Galarza C , Acosta-RodasP. Stress and productivity in workers of textile companies. J Fashion Market Manag 2019;23 :17–29. doi:10.1108/JFMM-02-2018-0030
7. Stepanek M , JahanshahiK, MillardF. Individual, workplace, and combined effects modeling of employee productivity loss. J Occup Environ Med 2019;61 :469–478. doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000001573 30985409
8. Hassard J , ThomsonL, BlakeH. Understanding and exploring the cost of poor mental health at work for organizations and society. In: DayA, CooperCL, eds. The Routledge Companion to Mental Health at Work. New York: Routledge, 2023, pp. 77–96.
9. Arumdani K , ChuriyahM. Job stress, work life balance, and workplace wellbeing: a bibliometric analysis. J Syntax Transform 2022;3 :631–642. doi:10.46799/jst.v3i5.554
10. Murphy LR , SauterSL. Work organization interventions: stage of knowledge and future directions. Soz Praventivmed 2004;49 :79–86.15150855
11. National Institute for Health and Care Guidance. NICE Guidance. 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance (7 May 2024, date last accessed).
12. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Health and Safety at Work Is Everybody’s Business—Practical Guidance for Employers. 2022. https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/guidelines/health-and-safety-work-everybodys-business-practical-guidance-employers (7 May 2024, date last accessed).
13. Le A , RosenJ. It is time to implement primary prevention in the workplace to ameliorate the ongoing U.S. opioid epidemic. New Solut 2021;31 :210–218. doi:10.1177/10482911211039880 34431383
14. Clayman K. Psychosocial safety & health: Q&A with Ken Clayman. Prof Saf 2021:46–47.
15. Blake H , HassardJ, BartleC, ThomsonL. Training for line managers should focus on primary prevention of mental ill-health at work. Perspect Public Health 2023;143 :124–125.37232255
16. Huo M , BoxallP, CheungG. How does line-manager support enhance worker wellbeing? A study in China. Int J Hum Resour Manag 2020;31 :1825–1843. doi:10.1080/09585192.2017.1423103
17. Salas‐Vallina A , AlegreJ, López‐CabralesA. The challenge of increasing employees’ well‐being and performance: how human resource management practices and engaging leadership work together toward reaching this goal. Hum Resour Manag 2021;60 :333–347.
18. Gayed A , Milligan-SavilleJS, NicholasJ et al . Effectiveness of training workplace managers to understand and support the mental health needs of employees: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup Environ Med 2018;75 :462–470.29563195
19. Gayed A , BryanBT, LaMontagneAD et al . A cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate HeadCoach: an online mental health training program for workplace managers. J Occup Environ Med 2019;61 :545–551.31045851
20. Milligan-Saville JS , TanL, GayedA et al . Workplace mental health training for managers and its effect on sick leave in employees: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry 2017;4 :850–858.29031935
21. Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. White Paper—Workplace Wellbeing: The Role of LMs in Promoting Positive Mental Health. Management Today, 2019. https://iosh.com/media/zcinwdnp/iosh-research-workplace-wellbeing-management-today-whitepaper.pdf (7 May 2024, date last accessed).
22. Giorgi G , LeccaLI, AlessioF et al . COVID-19-related mental health effects in the workplace: a narrative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17 :7857. doi:10.3390/ijerph17217857 33120930
23. Blake H , VaughanB, BartleC et al . Managing minds at work: development of a digital line manager training program. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19 :8006.35805665
24. Prudenzi A , JadhakhanF, GillK et al . Supporting employers and their employees with Mental hEalth problems to remain eNgaged and producTive at wORk (MENTOR): a feasibility randomised controlled trial protocol. PLoS One 2023;18 :e0283598.37079506
25. Hammer LB , BradyJM, BrossoitRM et al . Effects of a Total Worker Health® leadership intervention on employee well-being and functional impairment. J Occup Health Psychol 2021;26 :582–598. doi:10.1037/ocp0000312 34990169
26. Thomson L , HassardJ, FrostA et al . Digital training program for line managers (managing minds at work): protocol for a feasibility pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2023;12 :e48758.37874612
27. Blake H , HassardJ, Dulal-ArthurT et al . Typology of employers offering line manager training for mental health. Occup Med (Lond) 2024;74 :242–250.38722211
28. Baumann LC , YlinenA. Prevention: primary, secondary, tertiary. In: GillmanMD, ed. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 1738–1740.
29. Nielsen K , YarkerJ. What can I do for you? Line manager’s behaviors to support return to work for workers with common mental disorders. J Manag Psychol 2023;38 :34–46.
30. Schuring M , BurdorfL, KunstA, MackenbachJ. The effects of ill health on entering and maintaining paid employment: evidence in European countries. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2007;61 :597–604.
31. Reyes-Gibby C , AndersonK, SheteS, BrueraE, YennurajalingamS. Early referral to supportive care specialists for symptom burden in lung cancer patients. Cancer 2012;118 :856–863. doi:10.1002/cncr.26312 21751190
32. LaMontagne AD , KeegelT, LouieAM, OstryA, LandsbergisPA. A systematic review of the job-stress intervention evaluation literature, 1990–2005. Int J Occup Environ Health 2007;13 :268–280.17915541
33. Priyanka S , JitendraM. Holistic approach in dealing with mental stress during Covid-19 pandemic: a review. Int J Adv Res 2020;45 :325–329. doi:10.21474/ijar01/12092
