An examination of the current evidence for selection criteria between different types of stress management interventions

Abstract

In the public consciousness, poor workplace stress management has been considered a major cause of negative health outcomes for at least the past five decades, and in response to this, stress management interventions (SMIs) have arisen as a perceived solution. SMIs are intended to solve the perceived negative outcomes of stress on both the level of the individuals’ wellbeing and on the level of the organization’s efficiency. However, these interventions can vary significantly in their type and scope, and concerns are often raised that organizations are choosing the contents of their SMI inappropriately. This and ongoing mixed evidence on the efficacy of these interventions leads to serious concerns about the viability of SMIs in solving the problems they are intended to solve, which is not necessarily being reflected in the overall awareness of SMIs as it exists at the level of policy and legislature. The purpose of this thesis is to assess the overall state of the literature to conclude on how strong and reliable the existing data is regarding the suitability of different intervention types to different types of organizations, and whether it could be used to form criteria for organizations to decide what type of SMI would suit their unique needs. It is easy for researchers to point the finger at decision makers and accuse them of planning their SMIs inappropriately, but in order for them to do it right, resources must exist which give them the guidance needed to make correct determinations. This thesis has aimed to assess the degree to which this is the case and has made preliminary recommendations. In order to accomplish this, many interviews, literary sources, articles, essays, reviews, and studies were analysed and comprised into an overall literature review.