Skip to content

Contemplative interventions and employee distress: A meta-analysis.

G. Slemp, Hayley K. Jach, A. Chia, D. Loton, Margaret L. Kern

Stress and Health March 15, 2019 DOI: 10.1002/smi.2857 via Semantic Scholar

Summary

AI-generated from the abstract

Contemplative interventions such as mindfulness and meditation reduce psychological distress in employees, producing small to moderate effects that persist at follow-up. A meta-analysis of 119 studies (6,044 participants) found that the type of intervention and control group influenced results. Publication bias likely inflates estimated effects, especially in uncontrolled single-sample studies; adjustments lowered overall effects. The authors conclude that while these interventions are effective, proactive strategies are needed to prevent overestimation of benefits and misapplication in workplaces.

Study at a glance

Characteristics Systematic review and meta-analysis Randomized Peer reviewed
Sample size 6,044
Population Employees
Keywords Psychology Medicine Business
Citations 45
Key finding Contemplative interventions reduce employee distress with small to moderate effects, but publication bias inflates effect sizes.

Abstract

Mindfulness, meditation, and other practices that form contemplative interventions are increasingly offered in workplaces to support employee mental health. Studies have reported benefits across various populations, yet researchers have expressed concerns that adoption of such interventions has outpaced scientific evidence. We reappraise the extant literature by meta-analytically testing the efficacy of contemplative interventions in reducing psychological distress in employees (meta-analysed set: k = 119; N = 6,044). Complementing other reviews, we also examine a range of moderators and the impact of biases that could artificially inflate effect sizes. Results suggested interventions were generally effective in reducing employee distress, yielding small to moderate effects that were sustained at last follow-up. Effects were moderated by the type of contemplative intervention offered and the type of control group utilized. We also found evidence of publication bias, which is likely inflating estimated effects. Uncontrolled single-sample studies were more affected by bias than were large or randomized controlled trial studies. Adjustments for publication bias lowered overall effects. Overall, our review supports the effectiveness of contemplative interventions in reducing employee distress, but there is a need for proactive strategies to mitigate artificially inflated effect sizes to avoid the misapplication of contemplative interventions in work settings.

Comments

No comments yet.

Log in to comment