The Efficacy of Multi-component Positive Psychology Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Tom Hendriks, Marijke Schotanus-Dijkstra, Aabidien Hassankhan, Joop de Jong, Ernst Bohlmeijer

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)
81 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Recently, we see a sharp increase in the number of multi-component positive psychology interventions (MPPIs). The aim of the current study is to examine the efficacy of MPPIs, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included 50 randomized controlled trials that were published in 51 articles between 1998 and August 2018. We found standardized mean differences of Hedges’ g = 0.34 for subjective well-being, Hedges’ g = 0.39 for psychological well-being, indicating small to moderate effects, and Hedges’ g = 0.29 for depression, and Hedges’ g = 0.35 for anxiety and stress, indicating small effects. Removing outliers led to a considerable decrease in effect sizes for subjective well-being and depression, a slight decrease for psychological well-being, and a strong increase in the effect size for stress. Removing low quality studies led to a considerable decrease in the effect sizes for subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and depression, and a slight decrease for anxiety, but a strong increase for stress. Moderator analyses only showed a significant effect for study quality, showing larger effect sizes for low quality studies compared to studies of moderate and high quality. In addition, a larger effect size for anxiety was found in studies from non-Western countries compared to studies from Western countries. In sum, this systematic review and meta-analysis found evidence for the efficacy of MPPIs in improving mental health. We conclude that MPPIs have a small effect on subjective well-being and depression, and a small to moderate effect on psychological well-being. In addition, they may have a small to moderate effect on anxiety and a moderate effect on stress, but definite conclusions of the effects of MPPIs on these outcomes cannot me made due to the limited number of studies. Further well-conducted research among diverse populations is necessary to strengthen claims on the efficacy of MPPIs.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of happiness studies
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print/First online - 11 Feb 2019

Fingerprint

psychology
well-being
anxiety
moderator
mental health

Keywords

  • UT-Hybrid-D
  • Multicomponent
  • Positive mental health
  • Positive psychology
  • Randomized controlled trials
  • Well-being
  • Meta-analysis

Cite this

@article{58723e9f37a846e8b3f05530c1dd5709,
title = "The Efficacy of Multi-component Positive Psychology Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials",
abstract = "Recently, we see a sharp increase in the number of multi-component positive psychology interventions (MPPIs). The aim of the current study is to examine the efficacy of MPPIs, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included 50 randomized controlled trials that were published in 51 articles between 1998 and August 2018. We found standardized mean differences of Hedges’ g = 0.34 for subjective well-being, Hedges’ g = 0.39 for psychological well-being, indicating small to moderate effects, and Hedges’ g = 0.29 for depression, and Hedges’ g = 0.35 for anxiety and stress, indicating small effects. Removing outliers led to a considerable decrease in effect sizes for subjective well-being and depression, a slight decrease for psychological well-being, and a strong increase in the effect size for stress. Removing low quality studies led to a considerable decrease in the effect sizes for subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and depression, and a slight decrease for anxiety, but a strong increase for stress. Moderator analyses only showed a significant effect for study quality, showing larger effect sizes for low quality studies compared to studies of moderate and high quality. In addition, a larger effect size for anxiety was found in studies from non-Western countries compared to studies from Western countries. In sum, this systematic review and meta-analysis found evidence for the efficacy of MPPIs in improving mental health. We conclude that MPPIs have a small effect on subjective well-being and depression, and a small to moderate effect on psychological well-being. In addition, they may have a small to moderate effect on anxiety and a moderate effect on stress, but definite conclusions of the effects of MPPIs on these outcomes cannot me made due to the limited number of studies. Further well-conducted research among diverse populations is necessary to strengthen claims on the efficacy of MPPIs.",
keywords = "UT-Hybrid-D, Multicomponent, Positive mental health, Positive psychology, Randomized controlled trials, Well-being, Meta-analysis",
author = "Tom Hendriks and Marijke Schotanus-Dijkstra and Aabidien Hassankhan and {de Jong}, Joop and Ernst Bohlmeijer",
note = "Springer deal",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1007/s10902-019-00082-1",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of happiness studies",
issn = "1389-4978",
publisher = "Springer",

}

The Efficacy of Multi-component Positive Psychology Interventions : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. / Hendriks, Tom; Schotanus-Dijkstra, Marijke; Hassankhan, Aabidien; de Jong, Joop; Bohlmeijer, Ernst.

In: Journal of happiness studies, 11.02.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Efficacy of Multi-component Positive Psychology Interventions

T2 - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

AU - Hendriks, Tom

AU - Schotanus-Dijkstra, Marijke

AU - Hassankhan, Aabidien

AU - de Jong, Joop

AU - Bohlmeijer, Ernst

N1 - Springer deal

PY - 2019/2/11

Y1 - 2019/2/11

N2 - Recently, we see a sharp increase in the number of multi-component positive psychology interventions (MPPIs). The aim of the current study is to examine the efficacy of MPPIs, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included 50 randomized controlled trials that were published in 51 articles between 1998 and August 2018. We found standardized mean differences of Hedges’ g = 0.34 for subjective well-being, Hedges’ g = 0.39 for psychological well-being, indicating small to moderate effects, and Hedges’ g = 0.29 for depression, and Hedges’ g = 0.35 for anxiety and stress, indicating small effects. Removing outliers led to a considerable decrease in effect sizes for subjective well-being and depression, a slight decrease for psychological well-being, and a strong increase in the effect size for stress. Removing low quality studies led to a considerable decrease in the effect sizes for subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and depression, and a slight decrease for anxiety, but a strong increase for stress. Moderator analyses only showed a significant effect for study quality, showing larger effect sizes for low quality studies compared to studies of moderate and high quality. In addition, a larger effect size for anxiety was found in studies from non-Western countries compared to studies from Western countries. In sum, this systematic review and meta-analysis found evidence for the efficacy of MPPIs in improving mental health. We conclude that MPPIs have a small effect on subjective well-being and depression, and a small to moderate effect on psychological well-being. In addition, they may have a small to moderate effect on anxiety and a moderate effect on stress, but definite conclusions of the effects of MPPIs on these outcomes cannot me made due to the limited number of studies. Further well-conducted research among diverse populations is necessary to strengthen claims on the efficacy of MPPIs.

AB - Recently, we see a sharp increase in the number of multi-component positive psychology interventions (MPPIs). The aim of the current study is to examine the efficacy of MPPIs, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included 50 randomized controlled trials that were published in 51 articles between 1998 and August 2018. We found standardized mean differences of Hedges’ g = 0.34 for subjective well-being, Hedges’ g = 0.39 for psychological well-being, indicating small to moderate effects, and Hedges’ g = 0.29 for depression, and Hedges’ g = 0.35 for anxiety and stress, indicating small effects. Removing outliers led to a considerable decrease in effect sizes for subjective well-being and depression, a slight decrease for psychological well-being, and a strong increase in the effect size for stress. Removing low quality studies led to a considerable decrease in the effect sizes for subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and depression, and a slight decrease for anxiety, but a strong increase for stress. Moderator analyses only showed a significant effect for study quality, showing larger effect sizes for low quality studies compared to studies of moderate and high quality. In addition, a larger effect size for anxiety was found in studies from non-Western countries compared to studies from Western countries. In sum, this systematic review and meta-analysis found evidence for the efficacy of MPPIs in improving mental health. We conclude that MPPIs have a small effect on subjective well-being and depression, and a small to moderate effect on psychological well-being. In addition, they may have a small to moderate effect on anxiety and a moderate effect on stress, but definite conclusions of the effects of MPPIs on these outcomes cannot me made due to the limited number of studies. Further well-conducted research among diverse populations is necessary to strengthen claims on the efficacy of MPPIs.

KW - UT-Hybrid-D

KW - Multicomponent

KW - Positive mental health

KW - Positive psychology

KW - Randomized controlled trials

KW - Well-being

KW - Meta-analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061498158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10902-019-00082-1

DO - 10.1007/s10902-019-00082-1

M3 - Review article

JO - Journal of happiness studies

JF - Journal of happiness studies

SN - 1389-4978

ER -