Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29945603›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2018

The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Farid Chakhssi, Jannis T Kraiss, Marion Sommers-Spijkerman, Ernst T Bohlmeijer

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 120 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
120citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

120 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

60 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Farid ChakhssiScelta, GGNet, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. f.chakhssi@utwente.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-6929-0331
Jannis T KraissCentre for eHealth and Well-being Research, Department of Psychology, Health, and Technology, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Marion Sommers-SpijkermanCentre for eHealth and Well-being Research, Department of Psychology, Health, and Technology, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Ernst T BohlmeijerCentre for eHealth and Well-being Research, Department of Psychology, Health, and Technology, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough positive psychology interventions (PPIs) show beneficial effects on mental health in non-clinical populations, the current literature is inconclusive regarding its effectiveness in clinical settings. We aimed to examine the effects of PPIs on well-being (primary outcome), depression, anxiety, and stress (secondary outcomes) in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for controlled studies of PPIs in clinical samples between Jan 1, 1998 and May 31, 2017. Methodological quality of each study was rated. We used Hedges' adjusted g to calculate effect sizes and pooled results using random-effect models.

resultsThirty studies were included, representing 1864 patients with clinical disorders. At post-intervention, PPIs showed significant, small effect sizes for well-being (Hedges' g = 0.24) and depression (g = 0.23) compared to control conditions when omitting outliers. Significant moderate improvements were observed for anxiety (g = 0.36). Effect sizes for stress were not significant. Follow-up effects (8-12 weeks), when available, yielded similar effect sizes. Quality of the studies was low to moderate.

conclusionThese findings indicate that PPIs, wherein the focus is on eliciting positive feelings, cognitions or behaviors, not only have the potential to improve well-being, but can also reduce distress in populations with clinical disorders. Given the growing interest for PPIs in clinical settings, more high quality research is warranted as to determine the effectiveness of PPIs in clinical samples.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016037451.

Indexed as

Anxiety DisordersDepressive DisorderHumansMental DisordersMental HealthOptimismPsychotherapyReinforcement, PsychologySomatoform DisordersStress, PsychologicalTreatment OutcomeChronic illnessDistressInterventionsMeta-analysisPositive psychologyWell-being

Identifiers

PMID29945603
PMCPMC6020379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.