Zak FentonWorking notes

· Evidence review · in progress

The employee assistance programme: what the evidence supports

The note this review supportsThe employee assistance programme is sold on a return nobody measured

The employee assistance programme is sold on a return nobody measured. It is offered by most large employers, used as a method against stress by half of the employers acting on it, used by a small share of staff in a year, and has never been tested against not having one. This review sets out what the evidence shows at each step, from where the return figure comes from to what the programme does for the people who use it. It supports the note on the employee assistance programme.

How this was checked

The question was split into tiers: how many employers provide one and how many staff use it, who uses it, what it does for the people who use it, sickness absence and return to work, presenteeism and productivity, organisational outcomes, cost and return, and harms and quality.

Each tier was searched in reviews, trials, guidance and government surveys, then graded with GRADE logic. Randomised trials start high and lose grades for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness and imprecision. Observational studies start low. Material from providers and the trade body was recorded and labelled, and never allowed to set a grade.

The search and first grading were done on 27 October 2026 by AI agents, over 176 sources, with three sources added on 27 October 2026 for the section on what the policy points to. A seeded random 30 per cent of the 144 cited sources was reopened by separate verifiers. None failed, and sixteen needed corrections of wording, funder or date, which are applied. Every passage in the ledger was reopened and copied from its source on 27 October 2026. Where only an abstract could be read, the ledger says so. Every grade here is provisional.

The headline

What is saidWhat the independent evidence says
Three quarters of UK employees have access to an EAP C17Employees themselves reported access at 40 per cent in 2009 and 39 per cent in 2014 C5C6. Across all employers in Great Britain, 13 per cent provide one C1.
Average usage has risen above 12 per cent C22Independent surveys put use in a year at 8 per cent of those with access in 2009 C5, 3 per cent in 2014 C6 and 7 per cent of workers with occupational health available in 2024 to 2025 C7. The trade body’s own provider data give 3.34 per cent C11.
Employers have seen a return of £10.85 for every £1 C13No published cost-effectiveness study exists C35. The one independent controlled evaluation found the programme broke even C45.
The EAP is a method for reducing stress, used by 52 per cent of employers acting on stress C51Employers have a legal duty to assess the risk of stress and act on it C53. Fewer of them, 38 per cent, report doing a risk assessment or stress audit C51. No study has tested whether signposting to an EAP changes anything for the person signposted, or whether it displaces the risk assessment.
Counselling cuts sickness absence by up to 60 per cent C25The one controlled comparison NICE graded found a very low certainty reduction in self-reported absence C30, a German comparison found no change C39, and no trial has tested an EAP for return to work C27.

What employers have

Across all employers in Great Britain, 13 per cent provided an employee assistance programme or an external welfare or counselling programme in 2022 C1. In 2018 it was 16 per cent overall and 76 per cent of large employers C2. Surveys of HR professionals give much higher figures because large organisations answer them. In the CIPD’s 2025 survey, 67 per cent of respondents offered one to all employees, 78 per cent of large private sector organisations and 39 per cent of private sector SMEs C3. The CIPD called it the most common wellbeing benefit on offer in 2023, at 82 per cent C4.

So it is the benefit most large employers have, and about one in seven employers overall.

How many use it

Five independent measures exist, each with its own definition. In 2009, 40 per cent of employees said their organisation provided access to counselling or another employee assistance programme, 3 per cent of all employees had used it in the last 12 months, and 8 per cent of those provided with it and eligible had C5. In 2014, 39 per cent reported access to an independent counselling or advice service, and among them it was the least used of the policies asked about, at 3 per cent C6. In 2024 to 2025, 7 per cent of workers with occupational health services available had used an EAP in the last 12 months C7. Among NHS staff in the pandemic, 5.3 per cent reported using one C10. The government’s own modelling assumes around 5 per cent C19.

Provider and trade body figures sit alongside, labelled. The trade body’s 2025 report, from 13 large providers’ submissions, gives 3.34 per cent of employees with access contacting a service in a year C11. Its earlier survey of ten providers gave a range of 0 to 7 per cent with an average of 4 per cent, from providers who each calculated it differently C20, which its summary rounded up to an average of 5 per cent C21. A 2024 poll reported 85 per cent of employers with an EAP seeing take-up of 3 to 5 per cent C23. The 2008 BACP review of mostly US studies put use at around 6.5 per cent, with published rates from 0.27 per cent to 50 per cent C24.

The 12 per cent figures come from somewhere else. The trade body’s online return calculator averages whatever its users enter. Its 2023 report gives 12.14 per cent and explains that the calculator’s users are a self-selected group with an active interest in the performance of their EAP C14. There is no standard definition, and most users enter the number of cases C15.

Grade: moderate that annual use is low, from repeated nationally representative surveys, downgraded once because the questions bundle the EAP with other counselling and advice. Low for the exact rate. No national measure of whether employees know they have one was found.

What the policy points to

In the CIPD’s 2025 survey, among the 681 organisations taking steps on stress, the employee assistance programme was the second most used method, at 52 per cent, behind flexible working at 61 per cent. Risk assessments or stress audits were reported by 38 per cent, a written stress policy by 30 per cent and HSE’s Management Standards by 20 per cent C51. The CIPD describes employers’ activity as more reactive than proactive, with counselling, phased return and the EAP the top three approaches C52. HSE states that employers have a legal duty to assess the risk of stress at work and act on it C53.

So the EAP is used as a stress response by more employers than report doing the risk assessment. No study found here has tested what signposting an employee to an EAP does for that employee, or whether having an EAP to point to changes whether a risk assessment is done. That is no evidence of effect, and it is the gap that matters most for how the programme is used.

Who has it and who uses it

Access runs with size and pay. Among employees with a long-term health condition, 39 per cent at employers with 250 or more staff had one against 12 per cent at smaller employers, and 37 per cent of those earning £50,000 or more against 22 per cent of those under £30,000 C8. In one UK provider’s counselling clients, 86.6 per cent of those who responded scored above the threshold for significant psychiatric problems C50, so the people who reach counselling are mostly already unwell. No UK study compares users with the rest of the workforce on linked records. Grade: low for the access gradient, very low for who uses it.

What it does for the people who use it

No randomised trial has compared an EAP with no EAP. A Cochrane review of return to work after adjustment disorders listed EAPs as eligible and found none C27, and the searches for this review found none since. The one trial that involves an EAP tested telephone CBT added to an existing programme, and its authors called the EAP-only control weak because almost nobody used it C41.

The controlled evidence is matched comparisons of people who chose to use a service with people who did not. NICE graded one, a US study of state employees, and found no difference in workplace distress, 0.08 standard deviations lower with an interval from 0.3 lower to 0.13 higher, very low certainty C28. The study’s earlier paper reported reduced depression and anxiety and no change in risky drinking over 2 to 12 months C37. NICE downgraded it for the sample, attrition of 35 to 45 per cent, self-report and confounding C31. A Canadian matched study of one external provider’s programme reported reduced distress, depression and anxiety at six months C40. A 2017 systematic review found 17 studies, mostly North American before-and-after designs with no comparable control group C44.

Short counselling does something for a while. In UK primary care trials, counselling beat usual care by 0.28 standard deviations at one to six months and by nothing detectable at seven to twelve C42. In routine UK workplace counselling data, 6,459 clients averaged 6.9 sessions and 62.5 per cent improved reliably and clinically, with no comparison group to say how many would have improved anyway C43.

Grade: very low, direction mixed. Users report fewer symptoms afterwards in matched studies; the one comparison NICE graded found no difference in distress.

Sickness absence and return to work

For short-term absence among users, NICE’s grading of the US study found absenteeism 0.23 standard deviations lower, with an interval from 0.44 to 0.01 lower, very low certainty, “Benefit” C30. The companion paper using timecard records found 4.8 to 6.5 per cent fewer hours lost per month, mostly among people with moderate rather than chronic absence C38. A German matched study found absenteeism did not change at six months C39. The 2017 review called the absence results mixed C44.

For return to work after long-term absence, nothing. The Cochrane review found no trials C27. In the 2024 to 2025 government survey, 6 per cent of employees who had taken long-term sickness absence had talked, or would talk, to an EAP adviser about getting back C9. Nobody has measured absence across a whole workforce before and after an EAP was introduced.

Grade: very low, mixed, for short-term absence among users. None found for return to work and for workforce-level absence. Nobody has measured these, so the evidence says nothing either way.

Presenteeism, turnover and the organisation

The US study’s own abstract reports a significant reduction in presenteeism C36, and NICE’s re-analysis of the same data found no difference, 0.17 standard deviations lower with an interval from 0.39 lower to 0.04 higher C29. The German study found self-rated productivity improved at four weeks and six months C39. Grade: very low, mixed, and nothing from the UK.

For turnover, one US panel linked satisfaction with EAPs to lower turnover at the 0.10 level C48, and the same author’s later panel found EAPs associated with higher turnover intentions C49. Nothing on recruitment or claims. Grade: very low, mixed.

Cost and return

NICE found no published cost-effectiveness study for the organisational interventions it reviewed C35 and set a research question on the long-term impact and cost effectiveness of EAP provision C34. The one independent controlled economic evaluation found here, in a 400-employee Australian organisation in the 1990s, reported a cost-neutral result, a benefit cost ratio of 1 to 1.0 C45.

The figures in circulation come from elsewhere. The trade body’s calculator, built for it by the Institute for Employment Studies, asks the user to enter the reduction in absence estimated to be attributable to the EAP, and fills in a default where no data exist C16. Its 2023 report averages the results as £10.85 for every £1, which it describes as a return employers have seen C13. That figure then travels. The Keep Britain Working review repeated the trade body’s £8 as a finding C18 and its 75 per cent access figure C17. Deloitte’s 2022 report counted the trade body’s calculator report as one of four new return on investment studies C47. A US provider’s 2025 model reports $5.39 per $1 and states that the research behind it had no control group C46. The BACP’s 2008 review stated that counselling or EAP provision at least covers its costs C26.

Grade: very low for independent economic evidence, which is one break-even study abroad. None found for the UK.

Harms and quality

Every outcome study found here is about counselling. The EAP as sold also includes legal advice, financial advice and manager support, and no study of any of those was found. No audit of counsellor qualifications, waiting times, risk escalation or what happens after the session limit was found. Providers report about five sessions a case and UK workplace counselling averages 6.9 C43. No study has tested whether buying an EAP displaces stress risk assessment or occupational health, which matters because more employers use the EAP against stress than report doing the risk assessment C51C53. None of this has been measured, so the evidence says nothing either way.

Claims that do not hold up

“Employers have seen an average ROI of £10.85” C13 is an average of calculator entries by self-selected HR users, built on an assumed absence reduction C16. “75% of UK employees have access” C17 exceeds the trade body’s own 2025 figure of more than half C12 and the 40 per cent employees report C5C6. “Average usage figures for EAPs have risen above 12%” C22 is the calculator figure C14; the trade body’s provider data give 3.34 per cent C11. “The average usage of EAP services by employees is 5%” C21 reports the most common value from ten providers as the average C20. Counselling “reduce[s] sickness absence rates in clients by up to 60%” C25 rests on uncontrolled studies the same review says are methodologically limited. “Counselling/ EAP provision at least covers its costs” C26 is contradicted by NICE’s finding of no cost-effectiveness study C35 and by the one controlled evaluation C45.

What this changes in the grid of 13 October

The published grid of benefits against outcomes carried the employee assistance programme at low certainty, improves, for mental health and for productivity. Both rested on evidence that does not test the EAP: the randomised trial tested CBT added to one C41, and NICE graded the matched study very low with intervals that cross no effect C28C29. Both cells should read very low, mixed. Long-term absence and return to work was graded very low, improves, on trials of other programmes; for the EAP it should read none found C27. Turnover moves from direction unknown to mixed C48C49. Take-up moves from low to moderate for the narrow statement that annual use is low C5C6C7C10, which strengthens the published message rather than reversing it.

Limits

Most of the controlled studies could be read only at abstract level, including the US cohort NICE graded, so their funders could not be checked here. The search found no UK controlled study of an external EAP as bought; the UK evidence is national surveys of provision and use, routine counselling data and NICE’s grading of a US study. Trade press and provider pages were read where they could be opened. Three figures from the 2024 to 2025 government survey are read from charts, because the report publishes no data table for them.

What would change these grades

A government survey question asked of all employees: do you have an EAP, have you used it in the last 12 months, and for what. Provider reporting to one definition, unique employees, linked to HR data.

A pragmatic randomised trial of EAP access or EAP counselling against usual care in UK workplaces, independent of providers, with symptoms, wellbeing and validated presenteeism measures at three, six and twelve months. That is what NICE’s research recommendation asks for C34.

A stepped-wedge study across employers introducing an EAP, with whole-workforce absence from payroll records, and a matched cohort of people starting long-term absence, with time to sustained return.

A trial-based UK economic evaluation. Publishing the calculator’s formula and dataset for independent review.

An independent audit of waiting times, counsellor qualifications, risk escalation and what follows the session limit, and a study of whether stress risk assessments are completed less often after an EAP is bought.

Claims ledger

Each claim is worded exactly as it was checked. Assessed claims show the source, passage, limits and date checked. If a source could not be checked, the entry records what was attempted and why. Claims still being checked are marked in review.

  1. C1Supported

    In the Department for Work and Pensions employer survey of 2022, 13 per cent of employers in Great Britain said they provided an employee assistance programme or an external staff welfare or counselling programme.

    Source
    Department for Work and Pensions (2023). DWP Employer Survey 2022: research report. DWP research report no. 1042. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    An employee assistance programme (EAP) or staff welfare / counselling programmes provided by an external organisation
    Where
    Table 3.4, "Which, if any, of the following do you currently provide to prevent employee ill-health or improve the general health and wellbeing of your workforce?", base all employers (4,003); the row value is 13%
    Limits
    Weighted to all employers in Great Britain, so dominated by small firms. The item bundles the EAP with any external welfare or counselling programme. Employers answered for themselves.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  2. C2Supported

    In a 2018 survey of employers in Great Britain for the Department for Work and Pensions, 16 per cent overall and 76 per cent of large employers provided an employee assistance programme or an external staff welfare or counselling programme.

    Source
    Tu T, Maguire K, Shanmugarasa T (2021). Sickness absence and health in the workplace: understanding employer behaviour and practice. Ipsos MORI for the Department for Work and Pensions. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    An Employee Assistance Programme (EAP), or staff welfare/counselling programme provided by an external organisation
    Where
    Table 4.1, Health and wellbeing provisions by organisation size; the row reads 16% total, 14% small, 39% medium, 76% large
    Limits
    Fieldwork was June to August 2018, with 2,564 employers. The item bundles the EAP with any external welfare or counselling programme.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  3. C3Supported

    In the CIPD's 2025 survey, 67 per cent of the 1,101 responding organisations offered an employee assistance programme to all employees, 78 per cent of large private sector organisations and 39 per cent of private sector SMEs.

    Source
    Sinclair A, Suff R (2025). Health and wellbeing at work 2025. Survey report. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, supported by Simplyhealth. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Employee assistance programme For all employees 67 80 71 62 39 78
    Where
    Appendix, Table 2, Wellbeing benefits on offer, by sector; columns all respondents, public sector, non-profit sector, private sector, private sector SMEs, private sector large
    Limits
    Respondents are HR professionals and managers answering for their organisation, with large organisations over-represented. The survey is supported by a health cash plan provider. It does not ask whether employees know about or use the programme.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  4. C4Supported

    The CIPD's 2023 survey report described employee assistance programmes as the most common wellbeing benefit on offer, at 82 per cent of respondents.

    Source
    Sinclair A (2023). Health and wellbeing at work. Survey report, September 2023. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, supported by Simplyhealth. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Employee assistance programmes (EAPs) are the most common benefit on offer, followed by access to counselling services.
    Where
    Section "Employee assistance programmes continue to be the most common wellbeing benefit offered", and Figure 6, where the EAP bar reads 82
    Limits
    True of 918 HR respondents, most from large organisations. Across all employers in Great Britain the government's own survey put provision at 13 per cent (C1).
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  5. C5Supported

    In the 2009 Department for Work and Pensions survey of employees, 40 per cent said their organisation provided access to counselling or another employee assistance programme, 3 per cent of all employees had used it in the last 12 months, and 8 per cent of those provided with it and eligible had.

    Source
    Young V, Bhaumik C (2011). Health and well-being at work: a survey of employees. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 751. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Access to counselling/an employee assistance programme was provided for 40 per cent of respondents and access to occupational health services to 38 per cent of respondents.
    Where
    Chapter 2 summary; the use figures are the row "Access to counselling or other employee assistance programme" in Table 2.3, Provision and take up of health and well-being initiatives or benefits, which reads 40, 3 and 8 in the columns organisation provides, take up as a proportion of the total sample, and take up as a proportion of those provided with and eligible for it
    Limits
    Fieldwork was October to December 2009 with 2,019 employees interviewed at home. The item bundles counselling with any employee assistance programme. Use was self-reported.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3↩ 4↩ 5

  6. C6Supported

    In the 2014 Department for Work and Pensions survey of employees, 39 per cent reported access to an independent counselling or advice service, and among those with access it was the least used of the policies asked about, at 3 per cent in the last 12 months.

    Source
    Steadman K, Wood M, Silvester H (2015). Health and wellbeing at work: a survey of employees, 2014. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 901. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    In the last 12 months, injury prevention training had been used most (54 per cent of employees had used it where available) and the least used was independent counselling (three per cent) (Figure 3.3).
    Where
    Section 3.1.4, Use of provided policies; access figure at Table 3.8, "Independent counselling or advice 39"
    Limits
    2,371 employees interviewed by telephone. The item was "independent counselling or advice service, such as or advice through an Employee Assistance Programme". The use figure rests on 924 employees who reported the policy was available.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3↩ 4↩ 5

  7. C7Supported

    In the Department for Work and Pensions survey of workers in 2024 to 2025, 7 per cent of workers who had occupational health services available had used an employee assistance programme in the last 12 months.

    Source
    IFF Research (2026). Survey of Employees and Self-Employed Workers, 2024 to 2025. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 1117. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    F7. In the last 12 months, have you used Occupational Health services for any of the following…? Base: Workers that had OH services available to them (module 1) (n=1,192). Response options cited by fewer than 5% not shown.
    Where
    Figure 7.6, Types of OH services used by workers in the past 12 months; the 7 per cent is the value label against "Employee assistance programmes" in the chart file linked from the report
    Limits
    The figure is read from a chart, and the chart has no data table. The question treats the employee assistance programme as one occupational health service, and the base is workers with occupational health available, so it is not use among all employees with an EAP.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3

  8. C8Supported

    In the same survey, employees with a long-term health condition at employers with 250 or more staff were far more likely to have an employee assistance programme or external welfare or counselling programme in place than those at smaller employers, 39 per cent against 12 per cent.

    Source
    IFF Research (2026). Survey of Employees and Self-Employed Workers, 2024 to 2025. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 1117. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Those working for larger employers with 250 or more staff compared with those at smaller employers with fewer than 250 staff (39% had an EAP, or welfare / counselling programme provided by an external organisation vs. 12%; 23% had additional external support or advice vs. 8%; and 22% had been signposted to external support vs. 9%)
    Where
    Chapter 8, External support or advice
    Limits
    The base is employees currently working with a long-term health condition (503), not all employees. The same section reports 37 per cent of those earning £50,000 or more against 22 per cent of those under £30,000.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  9. C9Supported

    In the same survey, 6 per cent of employees who had taken long-term sickness absence had talked, or would talk, to an adviser from their employer's employee assistance programme about how they could be helped back to work.

    Source
    IFF Research (2026). Survey of Employees and Self-Employed Workers, 2024 to 2025. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 1117. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    E5. Apart from your employer, who else have you talked to/will you talk to about how you could be helped to return to work? Base: If employee and had a long-term sickness absence and/or were either currently working or off sick (module 1) (n=162). Response options cited by 5% or fewer not shown.
    Where
    Figure 6.4; the 6 per cent is the value label against "An adviser from my employer's employee assistance programme (EAP)" in the chart file linked from the report
    Limits
    A base of 162, read from a chart. It mixes people who had talked to someone with people who said they would. Doctors and family were named by about half.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  10. C10Supported

    In the NHS CHECK cohort of 9,769 healthcare workers, 5.3 per cent reported having used an employee assistance programme at the six-month follow-up.

    Source
    Croak B, Lamb D, Stevelink SAM, et al. (2026). Inequalities in NHS staff support among those from ethnic minority and migrant groups during the COVID-19 pandemic. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    workplace support (10.3%) and EAPs (5.3%) were less frequently used
    Where
    Results, support programme use, and Table 3, Type of support used at T2 across the whole sample (n=9769)
    Limits
    NHS staff during the pandemic, with many other support routes on offer at the same time. No recall window is stated for the question.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  11. C11Supported

    The EAP trade body's 2025 market report, built from data submitted by 13 large providers, put the share of employees with access who contacted an EAP in a year at 3.34 per cent.

    Source
    UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association (2025). Focusing on the job: EAPs and keeping Britain working. Market report, October 2025. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    An estimated 623,000 employees contacted EAP providers in the last year (translating to a usage figure of 3.34% in terms of the total number of employees with access).
    Where
    Section "Changing causes for concern"
    Limits
    Trade body material from providers' own submissions, counting people who contacted a service rather than unique users on any standard definition. Industry material; it does not set a grade here.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3

  12. C12Supported

    The same report says EAPs were available to 18.675 million employees, which it describes as more than half of all UK employees.

    Source
    UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association (2025). Focusing on the job: EAPs and keeping Britain working. Market report, October 2025. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    EAPs supported more than 186,000 employers in the UK in the past year (compared with 105,000 in 2023) and were available to 18.675 million employees. That means more than half of all UK employees have access to an EAP.
    Where
    Key findings, point 2
    Limits
    A provider estimate, not a survey of employees. Employees themselves reported access at about 40 per cent in 2009 and 2014 (C5, C6).
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  13. C13Overstated

    The EAP trade body's 2023 report states that for every £1 spent on an EAP in the UK, employers have seen an average return of £10.85.

    Source
    UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association (2023). Financial return on EAPs 2023: managing the rise of complexity and employees at risk. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Figures from the period between October 2021 and October 2022 show that for every £1.00 spent on an EAP in the UK, employers have seen an average ROI of £10.85. This compares with a previous average of £8.00 in the previous year, and £7.27 in 2019. Our evidence comes from HR professionals making use of the EAPA UK ROI calculator
    Where
    Introduction
    Limits
    The figure is an average of outputs from an online calculator, entered by HR users of the trade body's site. The calculator asks users to enter or default an assumed reduction in absence attributable to the EAP (C15), so the return is modelled from assumptions rather than measured. No employer outcome data were collected and no independent check of the method was found. It is presented as a return employers "have seen".
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3

  14. C14Supported

    The same report gives average EAP usage of 12.14 per cent and says the calculator's users are a self-selected group, so its figure is far higher than other usage studies.

    Source
    UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association (2023). Financial return on EAPs 2023: managing the rise of complexity and employees at risk. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    The EAPA calculator figure is far higher. This is because the users are a self-selected group: HR professionals and managers engaged with the importance of organisational wellbeing and an active interest in the performance of their EAP.
    Where
    Analysis 2023; the 12.14 per cent appears in the same section, "During the October 2021 and October 2022 period, average usage increased to 12.14%."
    Limits
    The report itself notes that the Work Foundation survey for the trade body suggested an average of 5 per cent and an employer index claimed 3 per cent. Usage is an input to the calculator, not a measurement.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  15. C15Supported

    The calculator's usage figure has no standard definition, and most users enter the number of individual cases raised with the EAP.

    Source
    UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association (2022). Financial return on EAPs 2022. January 2022. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Employers also enter an EAP service ‘usage’ figure. There is no standard method for this, but the great majority of calculator users enter a figure that represents the number of individual cases raised with an EAP.
    Where
    Section describing the calculator inputs
    Limits
    The same section says the figures in the report are based on data input independently by organisations and that extraordinary results have been excluded, without stating a rule.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  16. C16Supported

    The calculator, built for the trade body by the Institute for Employment Studies, asks users to enter the reduction in absence estimated to be attributable to EAP use, and uses default figures where no data are available.

    Source
    Bevan S, Bajorek Z (2019). Designing and testing a Return on Investment tool for EAPs: final report. Institute for Employment Studies, Report 515, for the UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Reduction in absence levels estimated to be attributable to EAP use (again, if no data is available, default figures are used based on results from previous research).
    Where
    Input page, Absence data
    Limits
    The report also says of its costing method that "estimates based on its use may be exaggerated", and thanks the EAP providers who supported the research. The formula and defaults' sources are not set out in a way that can be checked against an outcome study.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  17. C17Overstated

    The Keep Britain Working final report states that analysis by the EAP trade body found that 75 per cent of UK employees have access to an EAP.

    Source
    Mayfield C (2025). Keep Britain Working: final report. Independent review for the Department for Work and Pensions, Autumn 2025. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs) are now more widely available, with analysis conducted by the Employee Assistance Programme Association (EAPA) finding that 75% of UK employees have access to an EAP.
    Where
    Section on market-based solutions, Group Income Protection and EAPs
    Limits
    The trade body's own October 2025 report puts access at 18.675 million employees, "more than half" (C12), and employees themselves reported access at about 40 per cent in the two government surveys that asked (C5, C6). The figure is repeated from the trade body, not measured.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3

  18. C18Supported

    The same report cites an EAP association report for an average £8 return for every £1 invested.

    Source
    Mayfield C (2025). Keep Britain Working: final report. Independent review for the Department for Work and Pensions, Autumn 2025. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs): An EAP association report (2022) found an average £8 return for every £1 invested, based on data covering 7 million UK employees across different sectors, regions and workforce sizes.
    Where
    Paragraph 125, Return on investment
    Limits
    The report cited is the trade body's calculator summary (C13 to C16), so the government review repeats a modelled figure as found evidence.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  19. C19Supported

    The Keep Britain Working technical note takes average EAP usage to be around 5 per cent.

    Source
    Department for Work and Pensions (2025). Keep Britain Working: technical note. Autumn 2025. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    The average Employee Assistance Programme usage is around 5%
    Where
    Section on the take-up assumption for the proposed support package
    Limits
    A modelling assumption with a footnote to a web list of statistics rather than to survey data. It is consistent with the independent measures (C5 to C7, C10).
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  20. C20Supported

    Ten EAP providers surveyed for the trade body in 2016 gave normal usage levels ranging from 0 to 7 per cent, with a calculated average of 4 per cent and a most common value of 5 per cent, and described different ways of calculating it.

    Source
    Bajorek Z (2016). Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs): supporting good work for UK employers? The Work Foundation, for the UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association. Phase 1 report, December 2016. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Ten respondents provided what they considered to be a ‘normal’ level of usage for a full EAP. Percentage values ranged from 0-7%, with the calculated average at 4%, but the most common level reported was 5%. EAP providers described a variety of calculation measures they used to report what they considered to be this ‘normal’ level.
    Where
    Section "Total usage"
    Limits
    Commissioned by the trade body and answered by providers. The trade body's own summary of the research later stated the average usage as 5 per cent (C21).
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  21. C21Overstated

    The trade body's summary of that research stated that the average usage of EAP services by employees is 5 per cent.

    Source
    UK Employee Assistance Professionals Association (2016). The evolution of employee assistance: investigating the use, impact and reach of EAPs in today's organisations. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    The average usage of EAP services by employees is 5%.
    Where
    Key findings
    Limits
    The underlying report gives a calculated average of 4 per cent and a most common value of 5 per cent, from ten providers with no uniform method (C20). The summary reports the most common value as the average.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  22. C22Overstated

    In May 2024 the trade body's chair wrote that average usage figures for EAPs had risen above 12 per cent, against a typical average of around 4 to 10 per cent in earlier years.

    Source
    Bennett K (2024). How can we secure the future of the EAP? Personnel Today, 8 May 2024. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Average usage figures for EAPs have risen above 12%, compared with a typical average of around 4%-10% seen in years previously.
    Where
    Section on demand for EAPs
    Limits
    The 12 per cent is the calculator figure from self-selected users entering cases (C14, C15). The trade body's later provider-based figure is 3.34 per cent (C11).
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  23. C23Supported

    A 2024 poll of 200 employers reported in Personnel Today found that 85 per cent of those offering an EAP reported take-up of 3 to 5 per cent, and 27 per cent of 503 employees polled did not know the programme existed.

    Source
    Paton N (2024). Take-up of EAPs as low as 3%, with a quarter unaware they exist. Personnel Today, 17 June 2024. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    More than eight out of 10 employers (85%) that offer an employee assistance programme report take-up as low as 3%-5%, according to a poll. The survey of 200 employers by corporate health and wellbeing company HCML also found that, while 79% of the employers polled offered an EAP, more than a quarter (27%) of the 503 employees also polled had no idea it existed.
    Where
    Opening paragraphs
    Limits
    A commercial poll with no published method. Reported here as industry material; it does not set a grade.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  24. C24Supported

    The BACP's 2008 review of 128 workplace counselling studies concluded that around 6.5 per cent of employees make direct personal use of the service each year where it is available, with published utilisation rates ranging from 0.27 per cent to 50 per cent.

    Source
    McLeod J (2008). Counselling in the workplace: a comprehensive review of the research evidence, 2nd edition. British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    within the organisations that make workplace counselling available, around 6.5% of employees make direct personal use of the service each year;
    Where
    Report summary and conclusions; the range is in Section 3, "which range from 0.27% to 50% of employees making use of a counselling service per annum"
    Limits
    Mostly US studies published up to 2005, with varying definitions of use. Produced by the professional body for counsellors.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  25. C25Overstated

    The same review stated that counselling interventions have been found, in the majority of studies that examined it, to reduce sickness absence rates in clients by up to 60 per cent.

    Source
    McLeod J (2008). Counselling in the workplace: a comprehensive review of the research evidence, 2nd edition. British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    counselling interventions have been found, in the majority of studies that have examined this factor, to reduce sickness absence rates in clients by up to 60%;
    Where
    Report summary and conclusions
    Limits
    The review itself warns of methodological limitations and says it "has not been able to identify any high-quality outcome studies that evaluate workplace counselling and employee assistance services currently being offered in the UK". Mostly uncontrolled before and after studies of clients. NICE's grading of the only controlled EAP comparison found a very low certainty effect on absence (C31).
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  26. C26Unsupported

    The same review stated that all published economic studies had found that counselling or EAP provision at least covers its costs.

    Source
    McLeod J (2008). Counselling in the workplace: a comprehensive review of the research evidence, 2nd edition. British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    all published studies of the economic costs and benefits of workplace counselling have reported that counselling/ EAP provision at least covers its costs
    Where
    Report summary and conclusions
    Limits
    NICE's 2022 search found no published cost-effectiveness study for the organisational interventions it reviewed, EAPs included (C35). The one independent controlled economic evaluation of an EAP found here reported a benefit cost ratio of 1 to 1.0 (C45). The review's statement rests on provider-led and uncontrolled studies.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  27. C27Supported

    A 2012 Cochrane review of interventions to help people with adjustment disorders return to work included employee assistance programmes as an eligible intervention and found no randomised trials of them.

    Source
    Arends I, Bruinvels DJ, Rebergen DS, et al. (2012). Interventions to facilitate return to work in adults with adjustment disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD006389. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    No RCTs were found of pharmacological interventions, exercise programmes or employee assistance programmes.
    Where
    Abstract, Main results
    Limits
    Searches to 2011 and limited to adjustment disorders. Searches of PubMed, OpenAlex and both NICE workplace guidelines for this review found no later randomised trial of an EAP against no EAP either.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3↩ 4

  28. C28Supported

    NICE's evidence review for its 2022 workplace mental wellbeing guideline graded one non-randomised study of an EAP against usual care, and for workplace distress found a difference of 0.08 standard deviations lower, with an interval from 0.3 lower to 0.13 higher, rated very low certainty and "No difference".

    Source
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022). Mental wellbeing at work. Evidence review A: organisational universal-level approaches. NICE guideline NG212. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    The mean workplace distress in the intervention groups was 0.08 standard deviations lower (0.3 lower to 0.13 higher)
    Where
    Employee Assistance Programs compared with usual care for mental wellbeing at work, GRADE summary; 338 participants, 1 study, very low, "No difference"
    Limits
    One US study of state government employees, propensity matched, with self-reported outcomes. NICE labels the follow-up 12 months; the study's abstract reports 2 to 12 months with a mean of 6.0 (C36).
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  29. C29Supported

    In the same grading, presenteeism was 0.17 standard deviations lower in the EAP group, with an interval from 0.39 lower to 0.04 higher, rated very low certainty and "No difference".

    Source
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022). Mental wellbeing at work. Evidence review A: organisational universal-level approaches. NICE guideline NG212. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    The mean presenteeism in the intervention groups was 0.17 standard deviations lower (0.39 lower to 0.04 higher)
    Where
    Employee Assistance Programs compared with usual care for mental wellbeing at work, GRADE summary; 340 participants, 1 study, very low, "No difference"
    Limits
    The study's own abstract reports a significant reduction in presenteeism (C36). NICE's re-analysis of the same data does not.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  30. C30Supported

    In the same grading, absenteeism was 0.23 standard deviations lower in the EAP group, with an interval from 0.44 to 0.01 lower, rated very low certainty and "Benefit".

    Source
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022). Mental wellbeing at work. Evidence review A: organisational universal-level approaches. NICE guideline NG212. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    The mean absenteeism in the intervention groups was 0.23 standard deviations lower (0.44 to 0.01 lower)
    Where
    Employee Assistance Programs compared with usual care for mental wellbeing at work, GRADE summary; 343 participants, 1 study, very low, "Benefit"
    Limits
    Self-reported absence in one US study. The interval only just excludes no effect.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  31. C31Supported

    NICE downgraded that study for serious concerns about the representativeness of the sample, attrition of 35 to 45 per cent, self-report measures and possible confounding from the lack of blinding and allocation concealment.

    Source
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022). Mental wellbeing at work. Evidence review A: organisational universal-level approaches. NICE guideline NG212. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Serious concerns regarding representativeness of sample, participant attrition between 35% to 45%, use self-report measures utilised and potential confounding due to a lack of blinding and allocation concealment
    Where
    Footnote 1 to the GRADE summary for Employee Assistance Programs compared with usual care
    Limits
    NICE's judgement of one study. It applies to every EAP outcome in that table.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  32. C32Supported

    NICE's committee concluded that very low quality evidence from a single study indicated EAPs may reduce absenteeism with no effect on presenteeism or workplace distress, and chose a "consider" recommendation because of the lack of evidence.

    Source
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022). Mental wellbeing at work. Evidence review A: organisational universal-level approaches. NICE guideline NG212. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Very low-quality evidence from a single study indicated that employee assistance programmes (EAP) may be effective in reducing absenteeism, however, no effect was found on the outcomes of presenteeism and workplace distress.
    Where
    The committee's discussion of the evidence, organisational interventions; the following sentences read "Due to the lack of evidence around EAP, the committee chose a consider recommendation"
    Limits
    The committee also heard expert testimony about free or low-cost schemes for smaller businesses, which shaped the recommendation.
    Checked
  33. C33Supported

    The NICE guideline's recommendation is to consider giving all employees free access to an employee assistance programme and occupational health services, framed for small and medium-sized enterprises.

    Source
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022). Mental wellbeing at work. NICE guideline NG212, Recommendations. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Consider giving all employees free access to an employee assistance programme and occupational health services, and raise awareness of them if they are offered (for small and medium-sized enterprises).
    Where
    Recommendation 1.4.6
    Limits
    A "consider" recommendation, which NICE uses where the evidence is weaker and the choice is more open.
    Checked
  34. C34Supported

    NICE made a research recommendation on the long-term impact and cost effectiveness of employee assistance programme provision on mental wellbeing.

    Source
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022). Mental wellbeing at work. NICE guideline NG212, Recommendations for research. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    What is the long-term impact and cost effectiveness of employee assistance programme provision on mental wellbeing?
    Where
    Key recommendations for research, 2, Organisational-level approaches for all organisations
    Limits
    A research question, which signals the gap rather than filling it.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  35. C35Supported

    NICE's economic evidence statement for the organisational-level interventions it reviewed, which included employee assistance programmes, was that no published cost-effectiveness studies were identified.

    Source
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022). Mental wellbeing at work. Evidence review A: organisational universal-level approaches. NICE guideline NG212. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    No published cost effectiveness studies were identified.
    Where
    Economic evidence statement, organisational-level interventions
    Limits
    The statement covers the set of organisational interventions NICE reviewed, not EAPs alone. NICE searched published economic evaluations, which excludes provider models and calculators.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3

  36. C36Supported

    The study NICE graded, a US propensity-matched comparison of 156 EAP users with 188 non-users followed for 2 to 12 months, reported significantly greater reductions in absenteeism and presenteeism but not workplace distress.

    Source
    Richmond MK, Pampel FC, Wood RC, Nunes AP (2017). The impact of employee assistance services on workplace outcomes: results of a prospective, quasi-experimental study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), 170-179. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    At follow-up, EAP employees had significantly greater reductions in absenteeism (b = -.596, p = .001) and presenteeism (b = -.217, p = .038), but not workplace distress (b = -.079, p = .448), than did non-EAP employees.
    Where
    Abstract
    Limits
    Users chose to use the service and were matched to non-users on measured characteristics only. Outcomes were self-reported. Only the abstract could be read.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  37. C37Supported

    The same cohort's earlier paper reported that the EAP significantly reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety but not at-risk alcohol use, with follow-up collected 2 to 12 months later.

    Source
    Richmond MK, Pampel FC, Wood RC, Nunes AP (2016). Impact of employee assistance services on depression, anxiety, and risky alcohol use: a quasi-experimental study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(7), 641-650. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    EAP significantly reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety, but not at-risk alcohol use.
    Where
    Abstract, Results; "Follow-up surveys were collected 2 to 12 months later (M = 6.0)."
    Limits
    No effect sizes in the abstract. Same matched design, same limits as C36.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  38. C38Supported

    A companion study using employer timecard records for 145 matched pairs found a steeper decline in sick leave among EAP users, with 4.8 to 6.5 per cent fewer hours lost per month, and an effect mainly among those with moderate rather than chronic absence.

    Source
    Nunes AP, Richmond MK, Pampel FC, Wood RC (2017). The effect of employee assistance services on reductions in employee absenteeism. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(6), 699-709. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    A steeper decline in sick leave usage for EAP than non-EAP employees was found, with estimates of 4.8 to 6.5% fewer hours lost per month to illness. Further analysis found that EAP services were most effective in helping clients move from moderate to low levels of sick leave rather than in reducing sick leave for those experiencing chronic absenteeism.
    Where
    Abstract
    Limits
    One US public employer, users matched to non-users on measured characteristics. Only the abstract could be read, so the funder could not be checked here.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  39. C39Supported

    A German propensity-matched study of 73 EAP clients and 134 controls found health-related productivity improved at four weeks and six months, while absenteeism did not change in the EAP group at six months.

    Source
    Zieringer RC, Zapf D (2024). The effects of an employee assistance program on productivity at work, workability, absenteeism, and smartphone measures of heart rate and heart rate variability. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    We found that an EAP improves health-related productivity 4 weeks and 6 months after enrolling in counseling, above and beyond changes in the control group. Biological measures changed in the hypothesized directions, but differences between the groups did not reach significance. Absenteeism did not change in the EAP group 6 months after enrolling in counseling.
    Where
    Abstract
    Limits
    Small groups, self-rated productivity, and users who chose counselling. Only the abstract could be read.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3

  40. C40Supported

    A Canadian propensity-matched study of 152 EAP users and 152 non-users reported reduced distress, depression and anxiety at six months, and described itself as the first quasi-experimental study of an external EAP.

    Source
    Milot M (2019). The impact of a Canadian external Employee Assistance Program on mental health and workplace functioning: findings from a prospective quasi-experimental study. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 34(3), 167-191. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    At 6 month follow-up, EAP users had significantly reduced psychological distress, including reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety compared to non-EAP users.
    Where
    Abstract; "This is the first known quasi-experimental study conducted with an external EAP"
    Limits
    Self-reported outcomes from users who chose to use the service. No effect sizes in the abstract. One provider's programme.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  41. C41Supported

    The one randomised trial involving an EAP tested telephone CBT added to an existing EAP against the EAP alone, and its authors described the EAP-only control as weak because it was little used.

    Source
    Furukawa TA, Horikoshi M, Kawakami N, et al. (2012). Telephone cognitive-behavioral therapy for subthreshold depression and presenteeism in workplace: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One, 7(4), e35330. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    First and foremost, the control condition (waiting list with pre-existing EAP services of the company which, however, turned out to be little utilized) was weak.
    Where
    Discussion, limitations; the results report that in the EAP group of 60, three used the online job stress diagnostics, two used the online stress reduction programme and one made a telephone consultation
    Limits
    A Japanese manufacturing company, 118 people, stopped early for low accrual. It tests what adding CBT does, not what the EAP does.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  42. C42Supported

    A Cochrane review of counselling in UK primary care found a short-term benefit over usual care of 0.28 standard deviations and no long-term benefit.

    Source
    Bower P, Knowles S, Coventry PA, Rowland N (2011). Counselling for mental health and psychosocial problems in primary care. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD001025. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    The analysis found significantly greater clinical effectiveness in the counselling group compared with usual care in terms of mental health outcomes in the short-term (standardised mean difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.13, n = 772, 6 trials) but not in the long-term (standardised mean difference -0.09, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.10, n = 475, 4 trials)
    Where
    Abstract, Main results; short-term is one to six months and long-term seven to twelve months
    Limits
    GP-referred patients, not employees using a workplace service. Indirect evidence about short courses of counselling in general.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  43. C43Supported

    In UK routine practice data, 6,459 workplace counselling clients with planned endings averaged 6.9 sessions, and 62.5 per cent showed reliable and clinically significant improvement.

    Source
    Stiles WB, Barkham M, Wheeler S (2015). Duration of psychological therapy: relation to recovery and improvement rates in UK routine practice. British Journal of Psychiatry, 207(2), 115-122. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Workplace 6459 4035 (62.5) 5221 (80.8) 18.58 (4.98) 8.56 (5.98) 10.02 (6.36) 1.91
    Where
    Table 3, by service sector, columns patients, reliable and clinically significant improvement, reliable improvement, pre-treatment score, post-treatment score, difference, effect size; sessions in Table 4, "Workplace 6459 6.9 (4.4)"
    Limits
    Clients above the clinical cut-off who attended 40 or fewer sessions and had planned endings, so people who dropped out are excluded. No comparison group, so natural recovery is included in the change.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  44. C44Supported

    A 2017 systematic review of EAP effectiveness found 17 studies, mostly North American before-and-after designs, with the absence of a comparable control group among the most common limitations, and mixed results for absenteeism.

    Source
    Joseph B, Walker A, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of employee assistance programmes: a systematic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(1), 1-15. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    These were mostly from North America and utilized quantitative methodology and pre- and post-intervention designs. The majority of studies focused on EAPs offered by external providers and the counselling service, with the most common limitations being discrepancies in variable definitions and an absent comparable control group.
    Where
    Abstract; also "Absenteeism was most commonly investigated but produced mixed results."
    Limits
    Only the abstract could be read, so the funder and the included studies could not be checked here.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  45. C45Supported

    The one independent controlled economic evaluation of an EAP found, a 1997 Australian study in a 400-employee organisation over two and a half years, reported a cost-neutral result with a benefit cost ratio of 1 to 1.0 against no counselling.

    Source
    Blaze-Temple D, Howat PA (1997). Cost benefit of an Australian EAP. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 12(3), 1-24. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    The EAP program resulted in a cost neutral situation for the company when compared with those who had No Counselling. The benefit cost ratio was 1:1.0 for this comparison.
    Where
    Abstract
    Limits
    One blue-collar organisation in Perth in the 1990s, read at abstract level. Users were compared with non-users, not randomised.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3

  46. C46Supported

    A 2025 return on investment model from one US provider's case data reported $5.39 for each $1 and stated that the research behind it had no control group.

    Source
    Attridge M, Pawlowski D (2025). Return on investment for employee assistance programs: conceptual model and outcomes from 166,116 employee cases at CuraLinc Healthcare. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 15(5). Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    In the CuraLinc longitudinal research, there was no control group of other similar employees who were equally distressed but did not use the EAP.
    Where
    Limitations; the headline reads "The result showed over $5 in return for each $1 invested in the EAP benefit (ROI = $5.39:1)."
    Limits
    Provider data, a co-author employed by the provider, and a worked example for a hypothetical company. Industry material; it does not set a grade.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  47. C47Supported

    Deloitte's 2022 report on mental health and employers counted the EAP trade body's 2020 calculator report as one of four new return on investment studies published since its previous report.

    Source
    Hampson E, Henry J, Assal V, Polner A, et al. (2022). Mental health and employers: the case for investment, pandemic and beyond. Deloitte. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Four new studies have been published since our previous report, Mental health and employers: Refreshing the case for investment.14 These assess the return on investment (ROI) of employee assistance programmes,15
    Where
    Section on the return on investment; footnote 15 reads "Financial Return on EAPs 2020: How does your organisation compare?, EAPA UK, 2020"
    Limits
    Deloitte's headline average of £5.30 per £1 is across all workplace mental health interventions, not EAPs alone.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  48. C48Supported

    A four-year panel of US federal agencies found satisfaction with employee assistance programmes associated with lower turnover, significant only at the 0.10 level.

    Source
    Caillier JG (2016). Does satisfaction with family-friendly programs reduce turnover? A panel study conducted in U.S. federal agencies. Public Personnel Management, 45(3), 284-307. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    The results also indicate that alternative work schedules, child care programs, and employee assistance programs reduced turnover. Child care and employee assistance programs were significant at the .10 level.
    Where
    Abstract
    Limits
    Agency-level satisfaction scores, not use of the programme, and a weak significance threshold. US public sector.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  49. C49Supported

    A later panel study by the same author found employee assistance programmes associated with higher turnover intentions.

    Source
    Caillier JG (2017). Do work-life benefits enhance the work attitudes of employees? Findings from a panel study. Public Organization Review, 17(3), 393-408. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    In fact, two work-life programs (i.e., teleworking and employee assistance programs) were actually found to increase turnover intentions.
    Where
    Abstract
    Limits
    Intentions, not leavers, in US federal agencies. Only the abstract could be read.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2

  50. C50Supported

    In a survey of employees attending counselling through one major UK EAP provider, 86.6 per cent of the 111 who responded scored above the General Health Questionnaire threshold for significant psychiatric problems.

    Source
    Arthur AR (2002). Mental health problems and British workers: a survey of mental health problems in employees who receive counselling from Employee Assistance Programmes. Stress and Health, 18(2), 69-74. Open source (abstract only)
    Passage
    One hundred and eleven of 466 (24 per cent ) employees receiving counselling returned questionnaires and the results show 86.6 per cent of these experienced significantly high levels of psychiatric problems.
    Where
    Abstract
    Limits
    A 24 per cent response rate from one provider's clients. It describes who reaches counselling, not what counselling does.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  51. C51Supported

    In the CIPD's 2025 survey, among organisations taking steps to identify and reduce stress, the employee assistance programme was the second most used method at 52 per cent, behind flexible working at 61 per cent, with risk assessments or stress audits at 38 per cent, a written stress policy at 30 per cent and HSE's Management Standards at 20 per cent.

    Source
    Sinclair A, Suff R (2025). Health and wellbeing at work 2025. Survey report. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, supported by Simplyhealth. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    employee assistance programmes (EAPs) are the top two methods used to reduce stress (Figure 10).
    Where
    Section "Managing stress and mental health"; Figure 10, Methods used to identify and reduce stress, base 681 organisations taking steps, where the bars read flexible working 61, employee assistance programme 52, staff surveys 48, training for line managers 43, resilience training 39, risk assessments/stress audits 38, stress management training 31, written stress policy 30, occupational health specialists 29, changes in work organisation 28, HSE Management Standards 20
    Limits
    HR respondents, mostly from large organisations, reporting what their organisation does. The base is the 681 organisations taking any steps on stress, not all respondents. Using the EAP as a method says nothing about whether staff use it.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3↩ 4

  52. C52Supported

    The CIPD's 2025 report says the main focus of employers' mental health activity tends to be more reactive than proactive, with counselling, phased return to work and employee assistance programmes the top three approaches.

    Source
    Sinclair A, Suff R (2025). Health and wellbeing at work 2025. Survey report. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, supported by Simplyhealth. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    The main focus of employers’ activity tends to be more reactive than proactive, with just over two-fifths providing access to counselling services, phased return to work and employee assistance programmes, which are the top three approaches used by organisations.
    Where
    Section "More proactive steps are needed to prevent the workplace risks of mental ill health"
    Limits
    The CIPD's interpretation of its own survey. The same section goes on to say that providing support when employees are already unwell is very important.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1

  53. C53Supported

    The Health and Safety Executive states that employers have a legal duty to protect workers from stress at work by doing a risk assessment and acting on it.

    Source
    Health and Safety Executive. Work-related stress: stress risk assessment. Open source (full text read)
    Passage
    Employers have a legal duty to protect workers from stress at work by doing a risk assessment and acting on it.
    Where
    Section 4, Stress risk assessment
    Limits
    HSE guidance describing the duty, not a measure of how many employers meet it. The CIPD figure for risk assessments or stress audits (C51) is self-reported by HR respondents.
    Checked

    Back to text↩ 1↩ 2↩ 3

Back to the noteThe employee assistance programme is sold on a return nobody measured