Why a ‘one size fits all’ approach doesn’t work when it comes to mental health at work training

Author: Amber O’Brien, Founder and Lead Training Consultant

It has long been known that when it comes to mental health care provision, a ‘one size fits all’ approach simply doesn’t work. Just like our physical health needs, mental health is unique to the individual. What may negatively impact one person’s mental health, may not affect another. Similarly, what may benefit one person’s mental health, may not make a difference to another. This is not just true of medication but of talking therapies, social support, self-care, and even the approach to the therapeutic relationship. Genetics, lived experience, cultural background, social factors and personality can all influence what may be best for our mental health. 

When a ‘one size fits all’ approach is systematically applied and people’s subjective experiences are not taken into account, inequalities in care delivery become hugely evident. Bias, institutional discrimination, and racism surface. The disproportionate rates of black people being detained under the mental health act or physically restrained in hospitals provide a shocking example of this. Thankfully things are changing and there is much focus on research in this area as well as personalised care delivery, though there is still a very long way to go.

But this poses a wider question; why, when we know that a ‘one size fits all approach’ doesn’t work at the individual level, is this not considered at an organisational level? 

Mental health at work has been a hot topic for the past few years, following the publication of The Stevenson/Farmer Review into workplace mental health. For the most part, employers seem to be taking mental health at work seriously, which can be seen as nothing but positive. 

Mental health at work training uptake has increased since 2017 and many big companies are increasingly open about mental health, both in the public sphere and within their organisations. Yet the cost of poor mental health at work has increased by 16% in 3 years; in fact, evidence for the effectiveness of mental health at work training remains surprisingly lacking. This is, of course, in part due to the lack of research in this area, but there seems to be another glaring issue: a lack of needs-based, custom-made training. 

It seems fair to assume that each organisation and sector will have its own unique challenges and employee demographics. The culture in the fashion industry for example will not be the same as that in the financial sector.

For example, there have been numerous reports of high levels of alcohol and substance misuse in the hospitality industry. This indicates that training employees on the link between excessive alcohol/substance use and mental health, as well as strategies to minimise use, would be beneficial.

Men working in construction are 3 times more likely to take their own life than males in the general population. This suggests an urgent need to consider the impact that the organisational culture has on wellbeing and the specific demographics of the workforce (87.5% of which are men) and tailor training accordingly. Focussing heavily on male mental health and suicide intervention may be particularly useful. 

Some of the highest costs of poor mental health are in the finance sector, and reports of working excessively long hours of up to 21 hours are rife. This more than hints at a culture of extreme pressure and a need to focus mental health training on the impact that such a culture can have on mental health.

Moreover, a training model that reflects the importance of diversity and inclusion is vital. Mental health training should cover the impact that overt and insidious racism has on mental health, for example. It should highlight common experiences pertaining to workplace wellbeing, amongst women, people with physical disabilities, or older workers. It should consider the higher incidence of mental health problems among the LGBTQ+ community and how this should influence wellbeing interventions.

Just as a clinician should assess a patient’s unique needs before delivering care, a training provider should assess organisational needs before delivering training.

Of course, there are many aspects of mental health training that apply across the board. I am not advocating an entire overhaul or multiple, costly training sessions. What I am highlighting is the need for an adaptive training model. One that focuses on preventing mental health problems that employees within that organisation may be at a greater risk from experiencing. One that actively considers the diversity of the workforce. One that is devised following a thorough pre-training assessment of risk and needs.

We need to ensure that mental health training is not simply a well-meaning tick box exercise but that it affects real, lasting change and enables employers to support employees effectively. This will arguably be much more achievable when individual, organisational, and industry needs are considered at the planning level.