Erratum: preventing the development of depression at work: a systematic review and meta-analysis of universal interventions in the workplace

No abstract.

Upon reviewing our recently published review [1], we discovered that two of the nine studies we identified in our meta-analysis were in fact using results from the same dataset. We would not normally include the same data twice in a meta-analysis, so since discovering this we have re-run the analysis removing one of the studies [2]. This resulted in a very slight change in the pooled effect size for workplace universal interventions on depression measures (was originally 0.16, now 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.27) and the subgroup analysis of cognitive behavioural therapy-based universal prevention interventions on depression measures (remains unchanged at 0.12, but with a slight alteration in the confidence intervals, 95% CI: −0.01, 0.24). These are very minor changes in effect sizes which do not change our overall conclusions regarding the effectiveness of workplace universal interventions.
Corrected text: Please add the following text at the end of the second paragraph: However, upon closer inspection two studies [2,3] were found to have used the same dataset which resulted in one [2] of these being excluded from the meta-analysis.
(Page 6: Effects of workplace intervention program compared to control conditions, first paragraph) Please replace: Figure 2 presents the SMDs at post-test and the pooled mean effect size using the random effects model (REM), for the nine studies included in the meta-analysis. The overall mean difference between the intervention and control groups was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.24, P = 0.0002), with effect sizes varying from small negative effects (d = −0.01) to moderate positive effects (d = 0.61). No heterogeneity was detected (Q = 6.56; I2 = 0%; P = 0.68). As noted above, more than half of the included studies (n = 5) examined the impact of interventions based on CBT. A separate meta-analysis including only CBT-based intervention studies was conducted, the results of which are presented in Figure 3. The overall mean difference between CBTbased interventions and the control groups was 0.12 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.22, P = 0.01), indicating a positive effect for CBT-based interventions. There was no evidence of heterogeneity in this analysis (Q = 5; I2 = 0%; P = 0.93).
With the amended text: Figure 2 presents the SMDs at post-test and the pooled mean effect size using the random effects model (REM), for the eight studies included in the metaanalysis. The overall mean difference between the intervention and control groups was 0.17 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.27, P = 0.0009), with effect sizes varying from small negative effects (d = −0.01) to moderate positive effects (d = 0.61).
No heterogeneity was detected (Q =6.44; I2 = 0%; P = 0.60). As noted above, more than half of the included studies (n = 5) examined the impact of interventions based on CBT. A separate meta-analysis including only CBT-based intervention studies was conducted, the results of which are presented in Figure 3. The overall mean difference between CBT-based interventions and the control groups was 0.12 (95% CI: −0.01, 0.24, P = 0.07), indicating a small effect, of borderline statistical significance, for CBT-based interventions. There was no evidence of heterogeneity in this analysis (Q =1.28; I2 = 0%; P = 0.86).
(Page 9: Discussion, first paragraph) Please delete: When analyzed separately universally delivered CBTbased interventions significantly reduced levels of depressive symptoms among workers.
(Page 10: Conclusions) Please replace: Specifically, workplace CBT-based interventions are effective at universal symptom reduction for depression.
With amended text: There is emerging evidence that workplace CBT-based interventions are likely to be effective at universal symptom reduction for depression.