Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41482596›Full record

SynthesisNature human behaviour2026

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of well-being-focused interventions.

Lowri Wilkie, Zoe Fisher, Antonia Geidel, Isabel Goodall, Shannon Kamil, Elen Davies, Andrew Haddon Kemp

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

7 authors.

Lowri WilkieSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK. lowriwilkie@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8446-4926
Zoe FisherRegional Neuropsychology and Community Brain Injury Service, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK.
Antonia GeidelSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Isabel GoodallSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Shannon KamilSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Elen DaviesSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Andrew Haddon KempSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK. a.h.kemp@swansea.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1146-3791

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improving population well-being is increasingly recognized as a global priority, yet evidence on the comparative effectiveness of well-being-focused interventions in adults is fragmented. Here we conduct a preregistered systematic review and network meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023403480) of randomized controlled trials evaluating well-being interventions in adults without diagnosed conditions. Searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and Scopus (to March 2023) identified 183 trials (n = 22,811). Interventions included mindfulness-based, compassion-based, acceptance and commitment therapy and positive psychology interventions, as well as exercise, yoga, educational, nature-based programmes and combined exercise-psychological approaches. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, and data were synthesized using random-effects network meta-analysis. Most interventions improved well-being compared with inactive controls. Combined exercise-psychological interventions produced the largest effect (standardized mean difference of 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 1.20). Mindfulness, compassion, single positive psychology, yoga and exercise interventions demonstrated moderate, consistent effects (standardized mean difference of 0.41-0.49), with no significant differences between interventions. Nature-based interventions were not significantly more effective than controls, but evidence was limited by conceptual and methodological heterogeneity. Risk of bias was frequently moderate to high, and funnel plot asymmetry suggested potential publication bias. However, multiple sensitivity analyses (including grey literature, excluding studies with high risk of bias and small studies) supported the robustness of overall conclusions. Most comparisons (71%) were rated as moderate in certainty of evidence using CINEMA. These findings provide an integrated synthesis of the well-being intervention literature and highlight priority areas for future interdisciplinary, methodologically robust research. No external funding was received.

Indexed as

AdultHumansMindfulnessNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicYoga

Identifiers

PMID41482596
PMCPMC13120999

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.