WSPS Mental Harm Prevention Roadmap Year-Two Study
14
Time 2, many organizations had not yet implemented their plans to change. Therefore,
we did not anticipate changes to have trickled down to employee behaviour, which
requires more time to develop.
Overall, Table 2 highlights changes in a few relevant items in the MFI, which may have
changed because of greater emphasis on awareness of mental health issues, even if
specific initiatives had not yet been implemented. The companies' results showed an
increased awareness of the availability of EFAP and increases in employee perception of
inclusion and sense of feeling welcomed. This suggests that change can happen through
increased awareness and accountability on programs, which is consistent with a Plan –
Do – Check – Act approach. It also shows the benefits of checking in with workers to
ensure they understand what programs are in place and value them. The MFI Test 1 may
partially explain an improvement in EFAP awareness in Test 2 because employers may
have put some more focus on EFAP. It was encouraging to see two key levers that
support psychologically safe cultures of inclusion and feeling welcomed were improved,
providing applied evidence that psychological health and safety outcomes are
behaviour-driven (i.e., happen because of the employee experience).
Table 3 shows the results of MFI subscales. Additional details of these subscales can be
found in Appendix B. The four pillars represent behaviour health by employees.
Unsurprisingly, these items did not improve over time, given the limited time for
initiatives to impact employee behaviour. The five factors represent employee
perceptions of key factors described by the CAN/CSA Z1003 Standard. Results suggest
that these items showed some improvements across companies from Time 1 to Time 2,
which could be attributed to the MFI Test 1 creating more intention and conversations
