Cited by 188Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionMental Health via WritingMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

Improving mental health in health care practitioners: Randomized controlled trial of a gratitude intervention.

Cheng, Sheung-Tak, Tsui, Pui Ki, Lam, John H. M.·2015·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Chronic occupational stress is common among health care practitioners, with potential impacts on personal mental health and staff turnover. This study investigated whether directing practitioners' attention to thankful events in work could reduce stress and depressive symptoms. METHOD: A double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted in 5 public hospitals with follow-up to 3 months posttreatment. One hundred two practitioners were randomly assigned into 3 conditions: gratitude, hassle, and nil-treatment. Those with scheduled long leaves were excluded. Participants in the gratitude and hassle group wrote work-related gratitude and hassle diaries respectively twice a week for 4 consecutive weeks. A no-diary group served as control. Depressive symptoms (primary outcome) and perceived stress (secondary outcome) were collected at baseline, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up. Intent-to-treat analyses were performed with mixed-effects regression. RESULTS: Significant Treatment × Time interaction effects were found for the gratitude intervention, whether it was compared with control or hassle; the general pattern was a decline in stress and depressive symptoms over time, but the rate of decline became less pronounced as time progressed. Hassle and control were basically indistinct from each other. Relative to control, the gratitude group reported lower depressive symptoms (-1.50 points; 95% CI [-2.98, -0.01]; d = -0.49) and perceived stress (-2.65 points; 95% CI [-4.00, -1.30]; d = -0.95) at follow-up. RESULTS for the comparison between gratitude and hassle were similar. CONCLUSION: Taking stock of thankful events is an effective approach to reduce stress and depressive symptoms among health care practitioners.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0037895

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 40 · Cited by 188

Authors
Cheng, S.-T., Tsui, P. K., & Lam, J. H. M.
Affiliations
Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2015-02
Volume
83
Issue
1
Pages
177-186
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2317911878
Cited by
188
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
FWCI
9.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (HKIEd1001-SPPR-08)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
gratitude interventions, occupational stress, healthcare workers, depressive symptoms, perceived stress, hassles, diary writing, mental health, hospital staff
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Personnel, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Male, Mental Health, Stress, Psychological, Treatment Outcome, Workplace, Young Adult

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