A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of well-being-focused interventions
Lowri Wilkie et al.
What the paper says
Improving population well-being is increasingly recognized as a global priority, yet evidence on the comparative effectiveness of well-being-focused interventions in adults is fragmented. Here we conduct a preregistered systematic review and network meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023403480) of randomized controlled trials evaluating well-being interventions in adults without diagnosed conditions. Searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and Scopus (to March 2023) identified 183 trials (n = 22,811). Interventions included mindfulness-based, compassion-based, acceptance and commitment therapy and positive psychology interventions, as well as exercise, yoga, educational, nature-based programmes and combined exercise-psychological approaches. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, and data were synthesized using random-effects network meta-analysis. Most interventions improved well-being compared with inactive controls. Combined exercise-psychological interventions produced the largest effect (standardized mean difference of 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 1.20). Mindfulness, compassion, single positive psychology, yoga and exercise interventions demonstrated moderate, consistent effects (standardized mean difference of 0.41-0.49), with no significant differences between interventions. Nature-based interventions were not significantly more effective than controls, but evidence was limited by conceptual and methodological heterogeneity. Risk of bias was frequently moderate to high, and funnel plot asymmetry suggested potential publication bias. However, multiple sensitivity analyses (including grey literature, excluding studies with high risk of bias and small studies) supported the robustness of overall conclusions. Most comparisons (71%) were rated as moderate in certainty of evidence using CINEMA. These findings provide an integrated synthesis of the well-being intervention literature and highlight priority areas for future interdisciplinary, methodologically robust research. No external funding was received.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.