ReviewBMJ open2021
Mindfulness-based programmes to reduce stress and enhance well-being at work: a realist review.
Review in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mindfulness-Based Programmes for Work Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing workplace interventions to promote mental health: qualitative evidence synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Health Care Workers' Need for Headspace: Findings From a Multisite Definitive Randomized Controlled Trial of an Unguided Digital Mindfulness-Based Self-help App to Reduce Healthcare Worker Stress.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Trial
- Assessment of a psychoeducational group program for enhancing resilience and reducing burnout in primary healthcare workers in Catalonia: A pre-post study.Atencion primaria · 2026Article
- Mindfulness-Based Interventions to Implement the Psychological Well-Being of Nursing Students: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Clinician experiences in a DBT-informed consultation group embedded within a US academic primary care clinic: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- A systematic realist synthesis of digital interventions for enhancing mental health at work: contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes.International journal of mental health systems · 2025Review
- Physiological outcomes from mind-body resiliency programs in healthcare workers: A scoping review.PLOS mental health · 2025Article
- Self-compassion and work engagement among clinical nurses: the mediating role of moral resilience.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Advisory groups in realist reviews: Systematically mapping current research and recommendations for practice.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Review
- Factors affecting implementation of mindfulness in hospital settings: A qualitative meta-synthesis of healthcare professionals' experiences.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2024Review
- Interventions to promote medical student well-being: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2024Review
- Mindfulness training in medical education as a means to improve resilience, empathy, and mental health in the medical profession.World journal of psychiatry · 2024Article
- Experimental Mindfulness Intervention in an Emergency Department for Stress Management and Development of Positive Working Environment.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A protocol for a critical realist synthesis of school mindfulness interventions designed to promote pupils' mental wellbeing.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Self-Care for Nurses and Midwives: Findings from a Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo understand how and why workplace mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) work or do not work.
designA realist review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION: We considered any studies (experimental quasi-experimental, observational, qualitative and mixed-methods studies) of workplace MBPs as long as they provided data to explain our programme theories. All MBP formats and delivery modes were included. ANALYSIS: Consistent with realist review methodology, we systematically screened and analysed data to explain how and why workplace MBPs work or do not work. These explanations were consolidated into a programme theory augmented by theories from organisational literature, such as conservation of resources theory.
resultsFindings from 75 primary studies suggest that workplace MBPs enable participants (including healthcare professionals) to deal more skillfully with stressful events and improve their well-being. The mechanisms involved can be grouped around awareness/self-regulation, acceptance/compassion, feeling permitted to take care of self, sense of growth and promise of goal attainment. In order for professionals to invest in an MBP and benefit from it, it is important that they feel safe to engage with self-care at work and share emotional difficulties among peers. It is also important that employees are able to link the programme and its activities to existing goals and practices. Concerns of being non-productive, of not getting work done or of being exposed in front of colleagues can result in strategic use of brief mindfulness exercises, non-adherence or drop-out.
conclusionsSimply offering an MBP to (healthcare) professionals in order to reduce stress and enhance well-being does not suffice. A supportive environment must exist in order for the programme's benefits to be reaped. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018086280.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.