Computer-based versus in-person interventions for preventing and reducing stress in workers.

Area of Science:

• Occupational Health
• Psychology
• Evidence-Based Practice

Background:

• Chronic stress negatively impacts employee health, productivity, and healthcare costs.
• Both in-person and computer-based stress management interventions are effective, but direct comparisons are limited.
• Computer-based interventions offer potential advantages in accessibility, convenience, and cost-effectiveness.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effectiveness of computer-based versus in-person stress management interventions for workers.
• To synthesize evidence on the differential impact of delivery modes on employee stress levels.

Main Methods:

• Systematic search of multiple databases (e.g., CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed) up to February 2017.
• Inclusion of randomized controlled trials comparing computer-based and in-person stress management interventions with identical content.
• Data extraction and analysis using standardized mean differences (SMDs) and GRADE approach, with meta-analysis precluded by heterogeneity.

Main Results:

• Two studies with 159 participants met inclusion criteria; both had a high risk of bias.
• Intervention content focused on stress education and coping strategies (e.g., relaxation, mindfulness).
• Conflicting results showed computer-based interventions as better in one study (SMD 0.81) and worse in another (SMD -0.35) for stress reduction.

Conclusions:

• Evidence comparing computer-based and in-person stress management interventions is of very low quality and conflicting.
• Small sample sizes and high risk of bias limit confidence in current effect estimates.
• Future research with robust methodology is essential to clarify the comparative effectiveness of different intervention delivery modes.