Trial reportBMJ mental health2024
Work Engagement and Well-being Study (SWELL): a randomised controlled feasibility trial evaluating the effects of mindfulness versus light physical exercise at work.
Trial report in BMJ mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04631302 (Work Engagement and Well-being Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Work Engagement and Well-being Study (SWELL): A Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial Evaluating the Effects of Mindfulness Versus Light Physical Exercise at Work
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are increasingly offered at work, often in online self-guided format. However, the evidence on MBPs' effect on work performance (WP) is inconsistent.
objectiveThis pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial assessed procedural uncertainties, intervention acceptability and preliminary effect sizes of an MBP on WP, relative to an alternative intervention.
methods241 employees from eight employers were randomised (1:1) to complete a 4-week, self-guided, online MBP or a light physical exercise programme (LE)(active control). Feasibility and acceptability measures were of primary interest. WP at postintervention (PostInt) was the primary outcome for preliminary assessment of effect sizes. Secondary outcomes assessed mental health (MH) and cognitive processes hypothesised to be targeted by the MBP. Outcomes were collected at baseline, PostInt and 12-week follow-up (12wFUP). Prospective trial protocol: NCT04631302.
findings87% of randomised participants started the course. Courses had high acceptability. Retention rates were typical for online trials (64% PostInt; 30% 12wFUP). MBP, compared with the LE control, offered negligible benefits for WP (PostInt (
conclusionThe trial is feasible; interventions are acceptable. Results provide little support for a later phase trial comparing an MBP to a light exercise control. To inform future trials, we summarise procedural challenges. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Results suggest MBPs are unlikely to improve WP relative to light physical exercise. Although the MBP improved MH, other active interventions may be just as efficacious. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04631302.
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.