Mindfulness-Based Programmes for Work Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Maris Vainre, Tim Dalgleish, Tia Bendriss-Otiko, Molly Butler, Amelia Kirkpatrick, Nana Kosugiyama, Fabiana Mariscotti, Candelaria Martinez-Sosa, Athina Sideri, Sebastian Sönksen, Tim Wood, Caitlin Hitchcock, Julieta Galante
Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress December 1, 2025 DOI: 10.1002/smi.70123 via PubMed
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractMindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) modestly improve task performance—the quantity and quality of completed assigned work—immediately after the intervention compared with doing nothing, but not compared with other active activities. The meta-analysis of 99 studies with 16,054 participants also found benefits for adaptive and contextual performance, and effects may persist for months. However, confidence in these results is very low due to limitations in the evidence. Employers and universities subsidize MBPs to boost work performance despite previously unclear evidence.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Systematic review and meta-analysis Randomized Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 16,054 |
| Population | Employees and students in academic and occupational settings |
| Intervention | Mindfulness-based programmes |
| Topics | Meditation |
| Keywords | Meta‐analysis Systematic review Work performance |
| Citations | 2 |
| Key finding | Mindfulness-based programmes improve task performance compared with passive controls but not compared with active controls, with very low confidence in the evidence. |
Abstract
Employers and universities globally subsidise access to mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) for their employees and students to improve work performance, despite unclear evidence. This paper offers the highest quality synthesis of MBPs' impact on work performance in academic and occupational settings to date (PROSPERO #191756). On 2nd August 2024, we searched eight databases. The primary outcome was task performance-the quantity and quality of completed tasks assigned to the individual. Secondary outcomes were contextual performance, adaptive performance, and counter-productive behaviour. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and appraised risks of bias. We conducted pairwise random-effects meta-analyses of 99 studies (N = 16,054). MBPs were found to improve task performance at post-intervention compared to passive control groups (k = 22, Hedges' g = 0.25, 95% CI 0.06-0.44, p = 0.01, I2 = 81.48%) but not compared to active control groups (k = 4, Hedges' g = 0.12, 95% CI -0.3-0.55, p = 0.43, I2 = 62.87%). MBPs improved adaptive performance and contextual performance. Effects may last several months. Confidence in the review results, per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), is very low.