Cited by 79Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutStress and Burnout Research

The benefits of mindfulness-based interventions on burnout among health professionals: A systematic review.

Open access
Klein, Anaelle, Taieb, Olivier, Xavier, Salome, Baubet, Thierry, Reyre, Aymeric·2020·EXPLORE

Abstract

Objective Healthcare professional burnout affects performance and has a negative impact on healthcare as a whole. Mindfulness-based Interventions (MIs), developed over the last 30 years, are increasingly used by healthcare professionals to reduce the risk of burnout. Yet the impact of MIs on burnout remains to be clarified. This review aimed to summarize and evaluate the existing literature on the potential benefits of MIs to minimize burnout risk.Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature, reporting according to the PRISMA standards. PubMed, Psychinfo, Web of Science and Science Direct databases were screened for original articles. Articles in English assessing an MI in combination with burnout measures were included up to September 2018.Results Thirty-four articles were included. Only four randomised controlled trials concluded to burnout improvement after several weeks of MIs (11,8%). In the remaining five randomised controlled trials, results did not reach statistical significance. Of the four controlled, non-randomised studies, three showed significant improvements on burnout. Twenty-one studies did not report a controlled trial design. Overall the results appeared to be widely heterogeneous and several methodological concerns arose from the review.Conclusion This review shows the overall insufficient level of evidence offered by the literature assessing the effects of MIs on burnout in health professional populations. However, some studies have reported promising results and future research should address methodological issues and define more precise contexts of interventions and target populations that could benefit from MIs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.explore.2019.09.002

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Interventions that do not greatly disrupt daily productivity are more easily implemented for longer time periods and make longer term follow-up assessments more achievable.

    “Interventions that do not greatly disrupt daily productivity are more easily implemented for longer time periods and make longer term follow-up assessments more achievable.30–32”

    From Workplace interventions to improve well-being and reduce burnout for nurses, physicians and allied healthcare professionals: a systematic review. (2023) · cites this paper as [30]

    The “Limitations of the field” section (page unavailable) says time demands hinder health professionals’ participation and that shorter mindfulness programs appeared to moderately improve completion. It does not assess disruption to daily productivity or show that less disruptive interventions can be sustained longer or make long-term follow-up easier; the “Methodological issues” section notes that long follow-up was absent from the studies reviewed. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Several reviews of EBS interventions for healthcare staff have focused only on mindfulness-based interventions.

    “Several reviews of EBS interventions for healthcare staff have focused only on mindfulness-based interventions [33, 133–135].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klein, A., Taieb, O., Xavier, S., Baubet, T., & Reyre, A.
Affiliations
  • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Reyre, Aymeric
Venue
EXPLORE
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
35-43
ISSN
1550-8307 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2978968908
Cited by
79
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EXPLORE (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
mindfulness-based interventions, burnout, healthcare workers, occupational stress, psychological well-being, intervention effectiveness, methodological quality
MeSH terms
Occupational Stress, Burnout, Professional, Health Personnel, Humans, Mindfulness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review