CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 426Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsWorkplace Health and Well-beingStress and Burnout Research

A systematic review and meta-analysis of workplace mindfulness training randomized controlled trials.

Open access
Bartlett, Larissa, Martin, Angela, Neil, Amanda L., Memish, Kate, Otahal, Petr, Kilpatrick, Michelle, Sanderson, Kristy·2019·Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
DOI 10.1037/ocp0000146
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This meta-analytic review responds to promises in the research literature and public domain about the benefits of workplace mindfulness training. It synthesizes randomized controlled trial evidence from workplace-delivered training for changes in mindfulness, stress, mental health, well-being, and work performance outcomes. Going beyond extant reviews, this article explores the influence of variability in workforce and intervention characteristics for reducing perceived stress. Meta-effect estimates (Hedge's g) were computed using data from 23 studies. Results indicate beneficial effects following training for mindfulness (g = 0.45, p < .001) and stress (g = 0.56, p < .001), anxiety (g = 0.62, p < .001) and psychological distress (g = 0.69, p < .001), and for well-being (g = 0.46, p = .002) and sleep (g = 0.26, p = .003). No conclusions could be drawn from pooled data for burnout due to ambivalence in results, for depression due to publication bias, or for work performance due to insufficient data. The potential for integrating the construct of mindfulness within job demands-resources, coping, and prevention theories of work stress is considered in relation to the results. Limitations to study designs and reporting are addressed, and recommendations to advance research in this field are made. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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 · 10.1037/ocp0000146

Cites

110 of 110 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?

  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mindfulness studies in the work context have demonstrated that both deficit-oriented parameters, such as burnout and depression, and resource-oriented parameters, such as job satisfaction and work performance, can be improved through mindfulness-based programs.

    “Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mindfulness studies in the work context have demonstrated that both deficit-oriented parameters, such as burnout and depression, as well as resource-oriented parameters, such as job satisfaction and work performance, can be improved through mindfulness-based programs (Bartlett et al., 2019; Lomas et al., 2019; Richardson & Rothstein, 2008; Vonderlin et al.,”

    From Mindfulness-Based and Mindfulness-Informed Interventions at the Workplace: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis of RCTs (2023) · cites this paper as Bartlett et al., 2019

    The Results of the Meta-Analysis (page unavailable) report an initial reduction in depressive symptoms, but the Discussion says it became non-significant after accounting for potential publication bias. Burnout results were not significant, and the Conclusions say improved work performance is not yet supported by the evidence. The retrieved passages do not establish improved job satisfaction; the paper discusses life satisfaction, which is a different outcome. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Growing evidence suggests that mindfulness-based programmes are effective for improving wellbeing in HCPs.

    “Growing evidence suggests that mindfulness-based programmes are effective for improving wellbeing in HCPs (see Bartlett et al., 2019 for a review).”

    From Wellbeing, burnout, and safe practice among healthcare professionals: predictive influences of mindfulness, values, and self-compassion (2022) · cites this paper as Bartlett et al., 2019

  • Mindfulness training has been demonstrated to positively affect stress, anxiety, and psychological distress.

    “It has been demonstrated to positively affect stress, anxiety, psychological distress [17], and depression [18].”

    From The Effectiveness of a Four-Week Online Mindfulness Training Course on Individual Mindfulness Skills and Personal Perception of Stress in Company Employees Working from Home (2022) · cites this paper as [17]

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 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Cohen-Katz, J., Wiley, S., Capuano, T., Baker, D. M., Deitrick, L., & Shapiro, S. (2005). The effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on nurse stress and burnout: a qualitative and quantitative study, part III. Holistic nursing practice, 19(2), 78-86 79p.
  2. Fu, R., Vandermeer, B. W., Shamliyan, T. A., O'Neil, M. E., Yazdi, R., Fox, S. H., & Morton, S. C. (2013). Handling Continuous Outcomes in Quantitative Synthesis. . In Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Ed.), Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville, MD. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154408/.
  3. Meinert, C. L. (2012). ClinicalTrials: Design, Conduct and Analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bartlett, L., Martin, A., Neil, A. L., Memish, K., Otahal, P., Kilpatrick, M., & Sanderson, K.
Affiliations
University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Sanderson, Kristy
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2019-02
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
108-126
ISSN
  • 1076-8998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1307
DOI
10.1037/ocp0000146
OpenAlex
W2914063688
Cited by
426
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 11
FWCI
8.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTAS Research Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
mindfulness, perceived stress, anxiety, psychological distress, well-being, sleep, burnout, depression, employee performance, job demands-resources model, coping, occupational stress prevention
MeSH terms
Work Performance, Occupational Stress, Adaptation, Psychological, Anxiety, Humans, Sleep, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Occupational Health, Workplace, 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