The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

16 Citations (Scopus)
78 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Although positive psychology interventions (PPIs) show beneficial effects on mental health in non-clinical populations, the current literature is inconclusive regarding its effectiveness in clinical settings. We aimed to examine the effects of PPIs on well-being (primary outcome), depression, anxiety, and stress (secondary outcomes) in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for controlled studies of PPIs in clinical samples between Jan 1, 1998 and May 31, 2017.
Methodological quality of each study was rated. We used Hedges’ adjusted g to calculate effect sizes and pooled results using random-effect models.

Results: Thirty studies were included, representing 1864 patients with clinical disorders. At post-intervention, PPIs showed significant, small effect sizes for well-being (Hedges’ g = 0.24) and depression (g = 0.23) compared to control
conditions when omitting outliers. Significant moderate improvements were observed for anxiety (g = 0.36). Effect sizes for stress were not significant. Follow-up effects (8–12 weeks), when available, yielded similar effect sizes. Quality of the studies was low to moderate.

Conclusion: These findings indicate that PPIs, wherein the focus is on eliciting positive feelings, cognitions or behaviors, not only have the potential to improve well-being, but can also reduce distress in populations with clinical
disorders. Given the growing interest for PPIs in clinical settings, more high quality research is warranted as to determine the effectiveness of PPIs in clinical samples.
Original languageEnglish
Article number211
Number of pages17
JournalBMC psychiatry
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Jun 2018

Fingerprint

Psychiatry
Meta-Analysis
Psychology
Anxiety
Depression
PubMed
Cognition
Population
Mental Health
Emotions
Guidelines
Research

Cite this

@article{2f2d7beca85d402b80358f257ee7a225,
title = "The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background: Although positive psychology interventions (PPIs) show beneficial effects on mental health in non-clinical populations, the current literature is inconclusive regarding its effectiveness in clinical settings. We aimed to examine the effects of PPIs on well-being (primary outcome), depression, anxiety, and stress (secondary outcomes) in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders.Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for controlled studies of PPIs in clinical samples between Jan 1, 1998 and May 31, 2017.Methodological quality of each study was rated. We used Hedges’ adjusted g to calculate effect sizes and pooled results using random-effect models.Results: Thirty studies were included, representing 1864 patients with clinical disorders. At post-intervention, PPIs showed significant, small effect sizes for well-being (Hedges’ g = 0.24) and depression (g = 0.23) compared to controlconditions when omitting outliers. Significant moderate improvements were observed for anxiety (g = 0.36). Effect sizes for stress were not significant. Follow-up effects (8–12 weeks), when available, yielded similar effect sizes. Quality of the studies was low to moderate.Conclusion: These findings indicate that PPIs, wherein the focus is on eliciting positive feelings, cognitions or behaviors, not only have the potential to improve well-being, but can also reduce distress in populations with clinicaldisorders. Given the growing interest for PPIs in clinical settings, more high quality research is warranted as to determine the effectiveness of PPIs in clinical samples.",
author = "Farid Chakhssi and Kraiss, {Jannis Thomas} and Sommers-Spijkerman, {Maria Petronella Johanna} and Bohlmeijer, {Ernst Thomas}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
journal = "BMC psychiatry",
issn = "1471-244X",
publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Chakhssi, Farid

AU - Kraiss, Jannis Thomas

AU - Sommers-Spijkerman, Maria Petronella Johanna

AU - Bohlmeijer, Ernst Thomas

PY - 2018/6/27

Y1 - 2018/6/27

N2 - Background: Although positive psychology interventions (PPIs) show beneficial effects on mental health in non-clinical populations, the current literature is inconclusive regarding its effectiveness in clinical settings. We aimed to examine the effects of PPIs on well-being (primary outcome), depression, anxiety, and stress (secondary outcomes) in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders.Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for controlled studies of PPIs in clinical samples between Jan 1, 1998 and May 31, 2017.Methodological quality of each study was rated. We used Hedges’ adjusted g to calculate effect sizes and pooled results using random-effect models.Results: Thirty studies were included, representing 1864 patients with clinical disorders. At post-intervention, PPIs showed significant, small effect sizes for well-being (Hedges’ g = 0.24) and depression (g = 0.23) compared to controlconditions when omitting outliers. Significant moderate improvements were observed for anxiety (g = 0.36). Effect sizes for stress were not significant. Follow-up effects (8–12 weeks), when available, yielded similar effect sizes. Quality of the studies was low to moderate.Conclusion: These findings indicate that PPIs, wherein the focus is on eliciting positive feelings, cognitions or behaviors, not only have the potential to improve well-being, but can also reduce distress in populations with clinicaldisorders. Given the growing interest for PPIs in clinical settings, more high quality research is warranted as to determine the effectiveness of PPIs in clinical samples.

AB - Background: Although positive psychology interventions (PPIs) show beneficial effects on mental health in non-clinical populations, the current literature is inconclusive regarding its effectiveness in clinical settings. We aimed to examine the effects of PPIs on well-being (primary outcome), depression, anxiety, and stress (secondary outcomes) in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders.Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for controlled studies of PPIs in clinical samples between Jan 1, 1998 and May 31, 2017.Methodological quality of each study was rated. We used Hedges’ adjusted g to calculate effect sizes and pooled results using random-effect models.Results: Thirty studies were included, representing 1864 patients with clinical disorders. At post-intervention, PPIs showed significant, small effect sizes for well-being (Hedges’ g = 0.24) and depression (g = 0.23) compared to controlconditions when omitting outliers. Significant moderate improvements were observed for anxiety (g = 0.36). Effect sizes for stress were not significant. Follow-up effects (8–12 weeks), when available, yielded similar effect sizes. Quality of the studies was low to moderate.Conclusion: These findings indicate that PPIs, wherein the focus is on eliciting positive feelings, cognitions or behaviors, not only have the potential to improve well-being, but can also reduce distress in populations with clinicaldisorders. Given the growing interest for PPIs in clinical settings, more high quality research is warranted as to determine the effectiveness of PPIs in clinical samples.

U2 - 10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2

DO - 10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2

M3 - Review article

VL - 18

JO - BMC psychiatry

JF - BMC psychiatry

SN - 1471-244X

IS - 1

M1 - 211

ER -