3. What has your team accomplished in the project so far (results)?

Within Work Package 5 (WP 5), the team created templates to help with data collection on intervention activities and costs for each intervention implemented at the intervention sites. The team also contributed to the creation of a questionnaire for collecting data on objective organizational indicators prior to and after intervention implementation to determine whether the organization could afford the interventions within WP 3. Because organizations may implement multiple and/or multilevel interventions, the plan has been to heavily rely on academic partners at intervention sites to organize data on intervention activities and costs rather than collecting data from study participants through diaries. Thus, the academic partners have been extremely helpful in ensuring a comprehensive data collection process for economic data for each intervention.

4.     What are you currently working on and what are the next steps?

Currently, our goal in WP 6 is to contribute to the development and promotion of an economic evaluation tool, which can be used as a standalone or in conjunction with other packaged tools to easily perform economic evaluation on interventions for promoting mental health from a business perspective. The tool will be integrated into the H-Work project's innovative and interactive platform or website, which will also include free downloadable resources on economic evaluation for mental health interventions. The organizational stakeholders involved in purchasing work health promotion interventions or in a position to decide (i.e., management, HR, OH providers) on occupational health and safety interventions are the target audience for this tool.

The team is eagerly awaiting the data for the Work Package (WP 5) deliverable on the economic evaluation of H-Work interventions. The team will collect data from various intervention sites across the EU and conduct statistical analysis aimed at evaluating the implemented interventions at various levels (IGLO) of the participating organizations. The team is also excited to contribute to the active dissemination of the H-work project's findings. We would like to participate in the publication of popular scientific results through appropriate channels such as journals, newsletters, and conference attendance.

5. What are your expectations regarding the outcomes of the project, after 2 and a half years of work? Has there been a change in the initial expectations?

The collaboration between the partners and work packages has been enriching and exciting. This was somewhat predictable, but you never know. We could have had more face-to-face consortium meetings to strengthen connections and networks, as well as work on ideas, but that was not to be. However, we cannot deny the importance of the project and what we have accomplished together. I believe the project concept, which began with a needs assessment and ended with organizations receiving the interventions they most needed, was spot on. We were only anticipating possible changes in outcomes. Let's say it's not long before we find out, because some of the participating organizations appear to be very interested in the project.

6. What are currently the main obstacles for your work in general and in the project?

There are not many obstacles. Of course, due to the project timelines, the deliverables for the economic evaluation may have to wait a little longer until some follow-up data is collected. Aside from that, we are on track to complete the deliverable in WP 5.

7. What has been (and still is) the impact of COVID on the work of your organization for the project?

COVID-19 came as a surprise. It dragged on for far too long, forcing all planned travel to be canceled. We held almost all our meetings online, but we could have held more face-to-face consortium meetings after the kick-off to strengthen our connections and networks. What the intervention sites have accomplished during the COVID-19 pandemic is nothing short of extraordinary. We greatly appreciate their efforts and contributions in ensuring that KI is not so much affected by COVID in terms of data for our work.

8. What is the biggest strength of your organization in advancing the project? 

We are a small team from KI, but we have a lot of help from the other work package members. Our organization's strength in moving the project forward stems from its expertise in research analysis, interpretation, and dissemination. In the evaluation of this complex multi-level intervention implemented across EU countries, we use the most efficient and innovative methods.

9. How do you think your organization and EFPA can collaborate?

It is important to communicate science. We believe that using the media and giving interviews to journalists is a unique opportunity to experience and share your scientific work with laypeople. We believe that we could collaborate with EFPA on communication activities and developing popular science reports for non-scientific audiences.

3.    What has your team accomplished in the project so far (results)?

So far, we have developed the evaluation framework, and we have developed the quantitative survey that explores the context in which the interventions operate and the processes that may facilitate a successful intervention outcome. The survey exists in four versions, each targeting one of the four levels of intervention, individual, group, leader, and organizational level. We have also developed interviews for key stakeholders, line managers and employees to understand more fully how they perceive the interventions and the intervention process. Our partners have used these methods in the first group of organizations that implemented interventions. Our partners are currently using the quantitative measures in the second group of organizations. We have also conducted a meta-process evaluation where we capture the experiences of our partners who are working with organizations to design, implement and evaluate interventions.

We have published the process evaluation framework in a literature review in Work & Stress and outlined the evaluation process in a paper in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. We have run several workshops on how to do process evaluation and how to write process evaluation papers.

4.    What are you currently working on and what are the next steps?

Currently, we are working on the validation of the survey data. We are also working on developing the process evaluation toolkit that will be made available for all on the H-Work platform. We continue to support the implementation of the process evaluation measures in the second group of organizations and we support partners in developing and writing process evaluation papers.

5.    What are your expectations regarding the outcomes of the project, after 2 and a half years of work? There has been a change re the initial expectations?

The pandemic obviously had a huge effect on the project, but we managed nevertheless to implement and evaluate multi-level interventions in all our participating organizations. We do fear that the pandemic has hampered the quality of the data.

6.    What are currently the main obstacles for your work in general and in the project?

The main obstacle to the project has been the pandemic, which has caused delays in the work with organizations. As the Sheffield team has not been in direct contact with organizations, we have faced fewer challenges than our partners.

7. What has been (and still is) the impact of COVID on the work of your organization for the project?

We have had to make some adjustments to our methods to try to capture how the pandemic has influenced how organizations have worked with implementing multi-level interventions.

8.    What is the biggest strength of your organization in advancing the project?

The greatest strength of our organization is that we have 20 years of experience in designing, implementing, and evaluating workplace interventions and can provide practical guidance on how to do this. We also have experience publishing complex research in high impact journals.

9.   How do you think your organization and EFPA can collaborate?

I think we can benefit each other as EFPA can help get our findings and tools out to a broad range of people. We on the other hand can help develop materials that are easily understood, facilitating the translation of research to practice.

Adequate funding is vital, she said, providing facts and figures showing the EU's support. "We have mobilised over EUR 11 million to offer mental health and trauma support, and are working with the International Federation of Red Cross on psychological first aid, mental health and psychosocial support in Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine itself," she said.

"Meanwhile, our work continues with Member States and stakeholders to make European societies better able to address mental health. In the last three years, we've allocated around EUR 27 million to mental health. This includes funding for national suicide prevention programmes, to improve client centred community-based services and self-help tool to prevent depression and suicidal behaviour."

The EU's new Healthier Together' Initiative offers comprehensive, structured support for EU action on mental health, she said. She also pointed out that even before the pandemic and the Russian war in Ukraine, 1 out of 6 Europeans was affected by mental health issues.

The Commissioner was speaking at the European Parliament in Brussels, at the event co-hosted by MEP Tilly Metz (Greens/EFA) and MEP Estrella Durá Ferrandis (S&D).

World Mental Health Day has been held annually since 1992 to raise awareness and reduce the stigma around mental health. In line with this year's theme is 'Make Mental Health and Wellbeing a Global Priority for All', and given the current context of global uncertainty, war and accelerated migration, MHE focused this year on refugees, migration and mental health.