紐時賞析／員工心理健康服務沒幫助？研究：「這項活動」是例外

研究指出，職場心理健康服務課程沒有發揮任何正面影響，而心理韌性和壓力管理訓練似乎會產生負面影響。（紐約時報）

Workplace Wellness Programs Have Little Benefit, Study Finds

員工心理健康福利活動 研究指成效不彰

Employee mental health services have become a billion-dollar industry. New hires are presented with a panoply of digital wellness solutions, mindfulness seminars, massage classes, resilience workshops, coaching sessions and sleep apps.

員工心理健康服務已成爲一個價值數十億美元產業。新員工會有許多數位健康解決方案，包括正念研討會、按摩課程、心理韌性工作坊、領導學和睡眠應用程式。

But a British researcher who analyzed survey responses from 46,336 workers at companies that offered such programs found that people who participated in them were no better off than colleagues who did not.

然而，一名英國研究員分析，有提供身心靈服務的這些公司，共4萬6336名員工受訪的迴應顯示，有接受心理健康服務的人並未比沒參加的同事過得好。

The study, published this month in Industrial Relations Journal, considered the outcomes of 90 different interventions and found a single notable exception: Workers who were given the opportunity to do charity or volunteer work did seem to have improved well-being.

這份研究本月在「勞資關係期刊」發表，將90種不同干預措施產生的結果納入考量，只發現一個值得注意的例外：有機會參加慈善和當志工的員工心理健康似乎真的有改善。

Across the study’s large population, none of the other offerings — apps, coaching, relaxation classes, courses in time management or financial health — had any positive effect. Trainings on resilience and stress management actually appeared to have a negative effect.

這項研究分析的廣大人羣中，其他產品—應用程式、教練課程、放鬆課程、時間管理和財務健全課程—都沒有任何正面影響。訓練心理韌性和壓力管理的課程實際上似乎適得其反。

“It’s a fairly controversial finding, that these very popular programs were not effective,” said William J. Fleming, the author of the study and a fellow at Oxford University’s Wellbeing Research Center.

這項研究作者、英國牛津大學「身心健康研究中心」研究員弗萊明說：「這發現很有爭議，就是這些非常受歡迎的課程竟成效不彰」。

Fleming’s analysis suggests that employers concerned about workers’ mental health would do better to focus on “core organizational practices” like schedules, pay and performance reviews.

弗萊明分析指出，關心員工心理健康的僱主最好關注「核心組織實務」，包括工作排程、薪資和績效檢視。

Fleming’s study is based on responses to the Britain’s Healthiest Workplace survey in 2017 and 2018 from workers at 233 organizations, with financial and insurance service workers, younger workers and women slightly over-represented.

弗萊明的研究是根據2017和2018年「英國最健康職場調查」，針對233個機構員工調查所得到的回覆，其中金融和保險業員工、年輕員工和女性回覆比率略高。

The data captured workers at a single point in time, rather than tracking them before and after treatment. Using thousands of matched pairs from the same workplace, it compared well-being measures from workers who participated in wellness programs with those of their colleagues who did not.

這項數據是在單一時間點詢問員工，而非追蹤他們接受對待前後的狀況。數據使用來自相同職場數千個配對，比較有無參加心理健康課程的員工心理健康指標。

Adam Chekroud, a co-founder of Spring Health, a platform that connects employees with mental health services, and an assistant professor of psychiatry at Yale University, said Fleming’s study examined interventions that were “not highly credible” and measured well-being many months later. A blanket dismissal of workplace interventions, he said, risks “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

將員工與心理健康服務連結的平臺「春天健康」共同創辦人、耶魯大學精神醫學系助理教授切克勞德表示，弗萊明檢視介入措施的研究「可信度不高」，且是在好幾個月後才檢測心理健康。他說，全面取消職場介入措施，等於冒「不分好壞，一竿子打翻一條船」的風險。

“There is recent and highly credible data that things like mental health programs do improve all those metrics that he mentions,” Chekroud said.

切克勞德說：「有可信度高數據顯示，心理健康課程等措施確實提升他提到的所有指標。」

文／Ellen Barry 譯／羅方妤