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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 111 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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).

Overview

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

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 111 references

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

Items 201–300 of 424

Related

See all

Metadata

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 › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › 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