Systematic umbrella review assesses stigma reduction outcomes of interventions in workplace settings, suggesting areas for improvement.
In addition to the challenges typically associated with mental health conditions, individuals with such conditions are frequently subjected to negative judgements and stigma. Over recent decades, researchers have increasingly focused on reducing the burden of mental health stigma through targeted interventions. With approximately 60% of the global population aged 15 and older employed in some capacity, the workplace is now recognised as a crucial setting for these initiatives. Although extensive literature exists on workplace stigma reduction, and numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted, a comprehensive synthesis of these reviews, alongside a quality appraisal and analysis of intervention outcome trends, has yet to be undertaken. To address this gap, the current study was a systematic umbrella review of 19 systematic reviews and six meta-analyses examining stigma reduction interventions delivered in workplace and industry settings. Based on the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool, the overall methodological quality of included reviews was low, with limited confidence being attributed to the relative majority. Nonetheless, most reviews reported positive outcomes in stigma reduction. Interventions that combined educational content with contact promotion and experiential learning consistently yielded the most robust and sustained reductions in stigma. Intervention success was not solely contingent on intervention type, delivery mode, or duration, but rather on the strategic alignment between content, facilitation quality, and contextual relevance. Organisations should prioritise co-design with people with lived experience, ensure facilitator competence, and embed interventions within broader well-being frameworks. Future research must focus on rigorous longitudinal evaluation to support sustained impact. Trial registration : This umbrella review was registered via the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) Database (CRD42023460718).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reisinger et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: