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 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.1002/smi.2857 via Semantic Scholar
Summary
A meta-analysis of 119 studies with 6,044 employees found that contemplative interventions (mindfulness, meditation, etc.) modestly reduce psychological distress in the workplace, with small to moderate effects that persist at follow-up. The type of intervention and control group influenced results. Publication bias was detected and likely inflates estimated effects; uncontrolled single-sample studies were more affected than randomized trials. Adjusting for bias lowered overall effects. The evidence supports effectiveness but cautions that inflated effect sizes could lead to misapplication of these programs.
Study at a glance
| Design | systematic review with meta-analysis |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 6,044 |
| Population | employees |
| Key finding | Contemplative interventions reduce employee distress with small to moderate effects, but publication bias likely inflates these estimates. |
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.