CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 170Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutStress and Burnout Research

Mindfulness training for healthcare professionals and trainees: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Spinelli, Christina, Wisener, Melanie, Khoury, Bassam·2019·Journal of Psychosomatic Research
DOI 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.03.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective Healthcare professionals (HCPs) experience a wide range of physical and psychological symptoms that can affect quality of patient care. Previous meta-analyses exploring mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for HCPs have been limited by their narrow scope regarding intervention type, target population, and/or measures, and reliance on uncontrolled studies; therefore, a more comprehensive and methodologically rigorous examination is warranted. This meta-analysis quantified the effectiveness of MBIs on distress, well-being, physical health, and performance in HCPs and HCPs-in-training.Method RCTs examining the effect of meditation and MBIs on HCPs and HCPs-in-training were identified and reviewed. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias.Results Thirty-eight studies were included in the analyses (n = 2505; 75.88% female). Intervention had a significant moderate effect on anxiety (Hedge's g = 0.47), depression (Hedge's g = 0.41), psychological distress (Hedge's g = 0.46), and stress (Hedge's g = 0.52). Small to moderate effects were also found for burnout (Hedge's g = 0.26) and well-being at post-intervention (Hedge's g = 0.32). Effects were not significant for physical health and performance. Larger intervention effects on overall outcomes were found with HCPs (Hedge's g = 0.52), with Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction intervention (Hedge's g = 0.47), and inactive controls (Hedge's g = 0.36).Conclusions Results suggest mindfulness-based interventions are effective in reducing distress and improving well-being in HCPs and HCP-ITs. Subgroup analyses suggest the importance of exploring potential participants' needs prior to selecting the type of mindfulness intervention. Future studies should assess changes in mindfulness and include active controls.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.03.003

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A 2019 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found that mindfulness training could reduce distress and improve well-being in health care professionals.

    “Our finding that nurses who used the mindfulness app regularly could experience change is consistent with the findings of a 2019 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that found that mindfulness training could reduce distress and improve well-being in health care professionals (Spinelli et al., 2019).”

    From Emergency department nurses' experiences of a mindfulness training intervention: A phenomenological exploration (2023) · cites this paper as Spinelli et al., 2019

  • Fourteen included studies did not measure mindfulness pre- and post-intervention, making it difficult to determine whether treatment outcomes resulted from increased mindfulness skills or other factors such as social support or group cohesion.

    “fourteen studies in the review did not measure mindfulness as an outcome measure pre- and post-intervention, thus making it difficult to ascertain whether effective treatment outcomes were a consequence of increased mindfulness skills (Spinelli et al. 2019) or other factors such as social support of group cohesion.”

    From The Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction on the Psychological Functioning of Healthcare Professionals: a Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Spinelli et al. 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 91 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Spinelli, C., Wisener, M., & Khoury, B.
Affiliations
McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Spinelli, Christina
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
120
Pages
29-38
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.03.003
OpenAlex
W2922353268
Cited by
170
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2019-08-01)
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, healthcare workers, medical trainees, anxiety, depression, psychological distress, burnout, well-being, stress, mindfulness-based stress reduction, meditation, occupational health
MeSH terms
Health Personnel, Humans, Stress, Psychological, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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