Stress management in the workplace for employees with hypertension: a randomized controlled trial

Cognitive-behavioral therapy for treating hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of the study is to investigate whether cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) can help in reducing blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension, both systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), this being the primary outcome. This was a systematic review with a meta-analysis that followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. The keywords used for the searches were CBT and hypertension and their respective synonyms, and were applied to the Pubmed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases. Eligibility and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. They assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane's RoB 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The data was pooled on the basis that all the analyses had a random effects model. Twenty-two studies were included in this review. In the meta-analysis, 11 studies were included in the analyses of the BP outcomes (SBP and DBP), five studies were included in the follow-up evaluation, and two studies in the body mass index (BMI) analysis. The searches included a total of 2897 patients. The studies presented a high risk of bias and very low quality of evidence. We observed an effect of -0.65 (95% CI: -0.91; -0.39) for CBT-based interventions on SBP with high heterogeneity (I2 85%) and a higher effect of -0.78% (95% CI: -1.13; -0.43) on DBP with even greater heterogeneity (I2 92%). We observed that CBT did have an effect on reducing BP and BMI in hypertensive adults. However, due to the considerable heterogeneity between the studies, the high risk of bias, and the low overall quality of evidence, confidence in these findings should be limited.

A Synthesized Model for Applying Stress Management and Biofeedback Interventions in Research Utilization: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Stress management and biofeedback interventions have been shown to be effective in improving mental and physical health outcomes. However, previous research studies and synthesized models for applying these interventions in research utilization are insufficient.

Objective

This study aimed to synthesize a model for applying stress management and biofeedback interventions in research utilization.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.Multiple studies were used to assess the effectiveness of applying stress management and biofeedback interventions published from 2017 to 2023. The process included identifying the research questions, conducting a comprehensive literature search, assessing study quality, extracting data, synthesizing the data, analyzing and interpreting the findings, drawing conclusions, and making recommendations.

Results

The results indicated a significant mean effect size without evidence of publication bias. The effect sizes of the subgroups among the study variables were not significantly different [Q = 4.02, p = .26]. However, there were significant differences regarding the mean effect sizes among the studies [Q = 63.59, p < .001] and also in terms of the test of subgroups among the participants [Q = 8.49, p = .04].

Conclusion

The results emphasize the importance of evidence-based practice and highlight the need for ongoing evaluation and refinement of interventions. The proposed model was supported by related theories and research studies in order to ensure the robustness and reliability to guide practice and future research in the field of biofeedback interventions. By following this model, researchers and practitioners can ensure that stress management and biofeedback interventions are evidence-based and are effective in improving mental and physical health outcomes.

The influence of burnout on cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Burnout is a public health problem with various health consequences, among which cardiovascular disease is the most investigated but still under debate. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the influence of burnout on cardiovascular disease.

Methods

Studies reporting risk (odds ratio, relative risk, and hazard ratio) of cardiovascular disease following burnout were searched in PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Embase, and ScienceDirect. We performed a random-effect meta-analysis stratified by type of cardiovascular disease and searched for putative influencing variables. We performed sensitivity analyses using the most adjusted models and crude risks.

Results

We included 25 studies in the systematic review and 9 studies in the meta-analysis (4 cross-sectional, 4 cohort, and 1 case-control study) for a total of 26,916 participants. Burnout increased the risk of cardiovascular disease by 21% (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.39) using the most adjusted risks and by 27% (OR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.43) using crude risks. Using stratification by type of cardiovascular disease and the most adjusted risks, having experienced burnout significantly increased the risk of prehypertension by 85% (OR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.70) and cardiovascular disease-related hospitalization by 10% (OR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18), whereas the risk increase for coronary heart disease (OR = 1.79, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.79) and myocardial infarction (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.71) was not significant. Results were also similar using crude odds ratio. The risk of cardiovascular disease after a burnout was not influenced by gender. Insufficient data precluded other meta-regressions.

Conclusions

Burnout seems to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, despite the few retrieved studies and a causality weakened by cross-sectional studies. However, numerous studies focused on the pathophysiology of cardiovascular risk linked to burnout, which may help to build a preventive strategy in the workplace.

Addressing Health Care Workers' Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Interventions and Current Resources

Background. Mental health is declining in health care workers. Objectives. To provide a comprehensive assessment of intervention literature focused on the support and treatment of mental health within the health care workforce. Search Methods. We searched online databases (e.g., Medline, PsycINFO). Selection Criteria. We selected manuscripts published before March 2022 that evaluated the target population (e.g., nurses), mental health outcomes (e.g., burnout, depression), and intervention category (e.g., mindfulness). Data Collection and Analysis. Of 5158 publications screened, 118 interventions were included. We extracted relevant statistics and information. Main Results. Twenty (17%) earned study quality ratings indicating design, analysis, and implementation strengths. Randomized controlled trials were used by 52 studies (44%). Thirty-eight percent were conducted in the United States (n = 45). Ninety (76%) reported significant changes, and 46 (39%) reported measurable effect sizes. Multiple interventions significantly reduced stress (n = 29; 24%), anxiety (n = 20; 17%), emotional exhaustion or compassion fatigue (n = 16; 14%), burnout (n = 15; 13%), and depression (n = 15; 13%). Authors' Conclusions. Targeted, well-designed mental health interventions can improve outcomes among health care workers. Public Health Implications. Targeted health care‒focused interventions to address workers' mental health could improve outcomes within this important and vulnerable workforce. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S2):S213-S226. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307556).

Preferences and Perspectives of Black Male Barbershop Patrons on Receiving Health Care in Nontraditional Settings

Introduction

Non-Hispanic Black men experience a disproportionate rate of morbidity and mortality from hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic conditions in the United States. Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of community-based health outreach in settings not traditionally utilized for health care. Understanding how potential future participants view health care services in nontraditional settings is a necessary step to ascertain the success of these interventions in the real world. Our study objective was to explore the preferences of Black male barbershop patrons regarding health care-provided services in these nontraditional settings.

Methods

We recruited patrons of a Black-owned barbershop in the San Francisco Bay Area. Study participants were asked to complete a survey assessing individual attitudes and preferences toward the idea of receiving health care services in traditional and nontraditional settings.

Results

Among non-Hispanic Black males (n=17), 81% agreed or strongly agreed that they would prefer to receive health care in traditional clinics. Receiving care at the pharmacy (56% agreed or strongly agreed) and the patient's own home (53% agreed or strongly agreed) were the next most preferred locations. A minority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred to receive health care in nontraditional settings: 47% for barbershops, 19% for churches, and 6% for grocery stores.

Discussion

Participants expressed preference for traditional over nontraditional settings, despite listing barriers that may be addressed, in part, by nontraditional settings. One potential reason for this is simply a lack of familiarity. Establishing and normalizing nontraditional clinical settings may allow for enhanced acceptance within Black communities, ultimately increasing health care access.

Individual-level interventions for reducing occupational stress in healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.  SEARCH METHODS: We used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that: 1. focus one's attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);  2. focus one's attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);  3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that 4. combine two or more of the above.  The crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).  MAIN RESULTS: This is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.  The number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.  Focus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention Fifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress. Focus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention  Forty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect. Focus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention Seven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.  A combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention Seventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Focus on stress versus other intervention type  Three studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors. The bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.

Workplace Discrimination and Risk of Hypertension: Findings From a Prospective Cohort Study in the United States

Background Mounting evidence has demonstrated a role of psychosocial stressors such as discrimination in hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. The objective of this study was to provide the first instance of research evidence examining prospective associations of workplace discrimination with onset of hypertension. Methods and Results Data were from MIDUS (Midlife in the United States), a prospective cohort study of adults in the United States. Baseline data were collected in 2004 to 2006, with an average 8-year follow-up period. Workers with self-reported hypertension at baseline were excluded, yielding a sample size of 1246 participants for the main analysis. Workplace discrimination was assessed using a validated 6-item instrument. During follow-up with 9923.17 person-years, 319 workers reported onset of hypertension, and incidence rates of hypertension were 25.90, 30.84, and 39.33 per 1000 person-years among participants with low, intermediate, and high levels of workplace discrimination, respectively. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses demonstrated that workers who experienced high exposure to workplace discrimination, compared with workers with low exposure, had a higher hazard of hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.11-2.13]). Sensitivity analysis excluding more baseline hypertension cases based on additional information on blood pressure plus antihypertensive medication use (N=975) showed slightly stronger associations. A trend analysis showed an exposure-response association. Conclusions Workplace discrimination was prospectively associated with elevated risk of hypertension among US workers. The adverse impacts of discrimination on cardiovascular disease have major implications for workers' health and indicate a need for government and employer policy interventions addressing discrimination.

Interventions to reduce the risk of mental health problems in health and social care workplaces: A scoping review

Work in the health and social care sector is stressful, and work-related stress increases the risk of depression, anxiety, burnout, and sleep disorders. Although interventions to reduce stress and burnout at workplaces have been developed and studied, most studies have lacked the effectiveness to improve the situation. Thus, more knowledge on interventions and analysis of their mechanisms is needed to reduce the risk of more adverse mental health problems (MHP). We conducted a scoping review to identify the relevant literature on individual and organizational interventions to improve mental health in health and social care workplaces. Data were gathered on target groups, intervention types and their effectiveness, and the outcomes of the interventions. We summarized this data thematically. The final review consisted of 76 studies. Mental health interventions primarily focused on health care workers rather than social care professionals. The interventions were mostly directed at individual workers, ignoring organizational-level interventions. They used a great variety of outcomes and questionnaires, and the questionnaires that measured the outcomes were used ambiguously. In most cases, the reported effectiveness of the studied interventions was incoherent, and many of the interventions had both statistically significant and non-significant effects. Evidence that interventions reduce the risk of work-related MHP is scarce. High-quality randomized controlled trials of interventions to promote mental health with more coherently formed outcomes are needed, especially on the organizational level. More interventions to improve social care professionals' mental health are also needed.

Mindfulness-Based Student Training Improves Vascular Variability Associated With Sustained Reductions in Physiological Stress Response

In today's fast-paced society, chronic stress has become an increasing problem, as it can lead to psycho-physiological health problems. University students are also faced with stress due to the demands of many courses and exams. The positive effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) on stress management and self-regulation have already been studied. We have developed a new mindfulness intervention tailored for students—the Mindfulness-Based Student Training (MBST). In this study, we present longitudinal results of the MBST evaluation. Biosignal analysis methods, including pulse wave variability (PWV), heart rate variability, and respiratory activity, were used to assess participants' state of autonomic regulation during the 12-week intervention and at follow-up. The progress of the intervention group (IGR, N = 31) up to 3 months after the end of MBST was compared with that of a control group (CON, N = 34). In addition, the long-term effect for IGR up to 1 year after intervention was examined. The analysis showed significant positive changes in PWV exclusively for IGR. This positive effect, particularly on vascular function, persists 1 year after the end of MBST. These results suggest a physiologically reduced stress level in MBST participants and a beneficial preventive health care program for University students.

The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy-based intervention on patients with diabetes: A meta-analysis

AIMS

This meta-analysis aims to update former meta-analyses from randomized controlled trials (RCT) focused on the efficacy of CBT for diabetes.

METHODS

Five databases were searched for RCTs. Primary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), fasting blood glucose (FBS), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and body mass index (BMI). Secondary outcomes were depression, anxiety and distress symptoms, quality of life, sleep quality.

RESULTS

32 RCTs were included. Results revealed that CBT could reduce HbA_1c: -0.14% (95% CI: -0.25 to -0.02%, P = 0.020); FBS: -15.48 mg/dl (95% CI: -30.16 to -0.81 mg/dl, P = 0.040); DBP: -2.88 mmHg (95% CI: -4.08 to -1.69 mmHg, P < 0.001); depression symptoms: -0.90 (95% CI: -1.22 to -0.57, P < 0.001); anxiety symptoms: -0.28 (95% CI: -0.50 to -0.07, P = 0.009); improve sleep quality: -0.92 (95% CI: -1.77 to -0.07, P = 0.030). Subgroup analysis indicated that CBT has siginificantly reduced HbA_1c when delivered as a group-based and face-to-face method, and psycho-education, behavioral, cognitive, goal-setting, homework assignment strategies were applied as central strategies.

CONCLUSION

CBT was an effective treatment for diabetes patients, significantly reduced their HbA_1c, FBS, DBP, depression and anxiety symptoms, and improved sleep quality.

Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions on health outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based intervention on health outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) has been recognized in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but no comprehensive systematic review has been conducted. To address this research gap, our study aimed to evaluate whether comprehensive CBT-based interventions positively affect health outcomes in CHD patients. It was hypothesized that CBT-based interventions are effective in: (1) Reducing depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms; (2) Reducing body mass index, blood pressure, and lipid levels; and (3) Improving quality of life, and exercise endurance.

AIM

To verify the effectiveness of CBT-based interventions on CHD patients through a meta-analysis of previous publications.

METHODS

Relevant RCTs published in English were obtained by searching electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Proquest, with the retrieval time from inception to August 2020. The primary outcomes were psychological factors (depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms), physiological factors (body mass index, blood pressure, blood lipids). The secondary outcomes included quality of life and exercise endurance. We used Review Manager 5.3 to conduct the meta-analysis and used the Physiotherapy Evidence Database tool to evaluate the quality of studies.

RESULTS

A total of 22 RCTs comprising 4991 patients with CHD were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The main analysis revealed that CBT-based intervention can reduce depression symptoms: -2.00 [95% confidence interval (CI): -2.83 to -1.16, P < 0.001]; anxiety symptoms: -2.07 (95%CI: -3.39 to -0.75, P = 0.002); stress symptoms: -3.33 (95%CI: -4.23 to -2.44, P < 0.001); body mass index: -0.47 (95%CI: -0.81 to -0.13, P = 0.006); and improve physical functioning: 3.36 (95%CI: 1.63 to 5.10, P = 0.000) and mental functioning: 6.91 (95%CI: 4.10 to 9.73, P < 0.001). Moreover, subgroup analysis results showed that CBT-based interventions were more effective for symptoms of depression and anxiety in CHD patients when individual, as opposed to group treatment, and psycho-education, behavioral and cognitive strategies were applied as the core treatment approaches.

CONCLUSION

CBT-based interventions are effective treatment strategies for CHD patients, significantly improving their symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress, body mass index, and health-related quality of life.

The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions on patients with hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Recently, the benefits of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions for patients with hypertension have been recognized, but there has been no systematic review that has comprehensively analyzed the efficacy of CBT on health outcomes in this population. We aimed to explore the therapeutic effect of CBT-based interventions on hypertension patients through a meta-analysis. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were obtained by searching electronic databases. The primary outcomes were physiological indicators (blood pressure, blood lipid profile). Secondary outcomes were psychological indicators (anxiety, depression), and the quality of sleep. Stata version 15.0 software was used to analyze the results. A total of 15 RCTs were included. The main analysis revealed that CBT-based interventions reduced systolic pressure: -8.67 (95% CI: -10.67 to -6.67, P = 0.000); diastolic pressure: -5.82 (95% CI: -7.82 to -3.81, P = 0.000); total cholesterol levels: -0.43 (95% CI: -0.76 to -0.10, P = 0.010); depressive symptoms: -3.13 (95% CI: -4.02 to -2.24, P = 0.000); anxiety symptoms: -3.63 (95% CI: -4.40 to -2.87, P = 0.000); and improved quality of sleep: -2.93 (95% CI: -4.40 to -1.47, P = 0.000). Additionally, the results of subgroup analysis indicated that long-term group-based CBT-based interventions were particularly beneficial for blood pressure management in hypertension patients. CBT-based interventions are effective in reducing systolic pressure, diastolic pressure, total cholesterol levels, anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and improving quality of sleep in hypertension patients.

Job Stress and Cardiometabolic Lifestyle Modification Behaviors Among Workers in High-risk and Low-risk Workplaces

OBJECTIVE

There is scarce evidence revealing an association between job stress and cardiometabolic lifestyle modification behaviors among workers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, correlation study was conducted among workers in high-risk and low-risk workplaces by work characteristics.

RESULTS

Workers in high-risk workplaces had significantly higher job stress levels than low-risk workplaces. Higher job stress was significantly associated with lower cardiometabolic lifestyle modification behaviors (β = -0.14, P = .001). This significant association was evident only for high-risk workplaces in total job stress (β = -0.16, P = .001), including job demand (β = -0.16, P = .005) and job insecurity (β = -0.11, P = .026).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies for alleviating job stress should be prioritized to high-risk workplaces, and these efforts may concomitantly contribute to cardiometabolic risk reduction.

Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially traumatising event, challenging life circumstances, a critical life transition phase, or physical illness. Healthcare professionals, such as nurses, physicians, psychologists and social workers, are exposed to various work-related stressors (e.g. patient care, time pressure, administration) and are at increased risk of developing mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals, that is, healthcare staff delivering direct medical care (e.g. nurses, physicians, hospital personnel) and allied healthcare staff (e.g. social workers, psychologists).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults aged 18 years and older who are employed as healthcare professionals, comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, wait-list, usual care, active or attention control. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 RCTs (high-income countries: 36). Thirty-nine studies solely focused on healthcare professionals (6892 participants), including both healthcare staff delivering direct medical care and allied healthcare staff. Four studies investigated mixed samples (1000 participants) with healthcare professionals and participants working outside of the healthcare sector, and one study evaluated training for emergency personnel in general population volunteers (82 participants). The included studies were mainly conducted in a hospital setting and included physicians, nurses and different hospital personnel (37/44 studies). Participants mainly included women (68%) from young to middle adulthood (mean age range: 27 to 52.4 years). Most studies investigated group interventions (30 studies) of high training intensity (18 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (29 studies). Of the included studies, 19 compared a resilience training based on combined theoretical foundation (e.g. mindfulness and cognitive-behavioural therapy) versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list). The studies were funded by different sources (e.g. hospitals, universities), or a combination of different sources. Fifteen studies did not specify the source of their funding, and one study received no funding support. Risk of bias was high or unclear for most studies in performance, detection, and attrition bias domains. At post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare professionals receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.65; 12 studies, 690 participants), lower levels of depression (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; 14 studies, 788 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.15; 17 studies, 997 participants). There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on anxiety (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.23; 5 studies, 231 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 13 studies, 1494 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Effect sizes were small except for resilience and stress reduction (moderate). Data on adverse effects were available for three studies, with none reporting any adverse effects occurring during the study (very-low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For healthcare professionals, there is very-low certainty evidence that, compared to control, resilience training may result in higher levels of resilience, lower levels of depression, stress or stress perception, and higher levels of certain resilience factors at post-intervention. The paucity of medium- or long-term data, heterogeneous interventions and restricted geographical distribution limit the generalisability of our results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. The findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare professionals, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is a clear need for high-quality replications and improved study designs.