SynthesisPloS one2025
Positive expressive writing interventions, subjective health and wellbeing in non-clinical populations: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expressive writing combined with digital cognitive therapy in patients with schizophrenia: a narrative review of efficacy, linguistic phenotypes, and adherence modulators.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Facilitators and barriers to engaging in expressive writing among health and social care professionals.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Positive expressive writing has been increasingly researched over the past two decades due to its potential to serve as a low-intensity psychological self-help intervention. However, studies are heterogeneous in their methodologies and the health and wellbeing outcomes targeted, and it is unclear which outcomes are most reliably benefited by positive writing techniques. This systematic review aimed to determine the optimal conditions under which positive expressive writing interventions benefit subjective health and wellbeing in non-clinical populations. A systematic search was conducted across four databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and ProQuest: APA PsychArticles) identifying peer-reviewed articles written in the English language from 1930 to August 2023. A total of 51 studies were identified and included seven different positive writing techniques: best possible self, positive experiences, gratitude, benefit finding, satisfaction processes, three good things and resource diary. Most consistent benefits were found for wellbeing and positive affect outcomes (e.g., optimism, happiness) whereas less consistent effects were reported for negative affect, psychological health (e.g., stress, anxiety) and physical health outcomes. Best possible self and gratitude interventions revealed most consistent benefits. Several moderators were identified indicating that benefits may depend on individual differences relating to wellbeing, emotional and social factors. While reasonably consistent benefits of positive expressive writing were observed for wellbeing outcomes, the quality of all studies included in the review was assessed to be poor or fair. Thus, it is clear that more rigorous methods, including intention-to-treat analyses and robust reporting of methods and findings are needed. Future work should also aim to replicate the moderation effects reported in the present review, to enable a better understanding of the individual differences which influence the efficacy of positive expressive writing effects.
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.