SynthesisApplied psychology. Health and well-being2026
Effectiveness of savoring interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Applied psychology. Health and well-being, 2026. 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.
- Savor-Aging: The Art of Savoring Positive Emotions in Older Adulthood-A Randomized Controlled Trial.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2026Trial
- Reward Deficits in Co-Occurring Social Anxiety and Depression: The Roles of Anhedonia, Boredom, Loneliness, and COVID-19 Social Restriction.Journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
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
Savoring, a positive psychology intervention, has gained growing attention for its potential to enhance positive emotions and well-being while alleviating negative emotional symptoms such as depression and anxiety. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of savoring interventions on emotional outcomes. Twenty independent RCTs with 4805 participants were included, yielding 45 effect sizes. A three-level random-effects model with robust variance estimation (CR2) was employed to account for statistical dependence among multiple effects within studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. All analyses were conducted in R version 4.5.1 using the metafor (v4.8.0) and clubSandwich (v0.6.1) packages, with statistical significance set at α = .05 (two-tailed). The overall pooled effect was significant and of moderate magnitude (g = 0.51, 95% CI [0.26, 0.77], p < .001). For descriptive purposes, category-specific pooled estimates were observed for negative emotional symptoms (g = 0.61, 95% CI [0.31, 0.91], p < .001), negative emotional states (g = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.68], p = .056), and positive psychological states (g = 0.50, 95% CI [0.24, 0.75], p < .001); outcome category did not significantly moderate intervention effects. Moderator analyses indicated no statistically significant differences across delivery formats, cultural contexts, or risk of bias levels; control group type did not reach statistical significance as a moderator (Δg = -0.47, p = .068), although point estimates were larger for passive than active controls. Publication bias analyses (Egger's regression, PET-PEESE, trim-and-fill, and selection models) provided convergent evidence that the observed effects were unlikely to be driven by selective reporting. Savoring interventions demonstrate consistent and meaningful benefits for enhancing positive psychological outcomes and reducing negative emotional symptoms across diverse populations and delivery modes. The findings underscore savoring's potential as a scalable and culturally adaptable approach to promoting emotional well-being.
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.