Question · asked by 1 review
Training vs no intervention: General well‐being
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Training vs no intervention Well‐being Higher score better Mid‐term CBA Off the job/interaction training Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 744 participants | Very low |
Training vs no intervention Well‐being Higher score better Mid‐term CBA On the job/environment training Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 129 participants | Very low |
Training vs no intervention Well‐being Higher score better Long‐term cRCT Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 547 participants | Low |
Training vs no intervention Well‐being Higher score better Mid‐term cRCT + RCT On the job/interaction training Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 77 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human resource management training of supervisors for improving health and well‐being of employees 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.