Maris Vainre, Tim Dalgleish, Peter Watson, Christina Haag, Quentin Dercon, Julieta Galante, Caitlin Hitchcock
{"title":"工作参与和幸福研究（SWELL）：一项随机对照可行性试验，评估工作中正念与轻微体育锻炼的效果。","authors":"Maris Vainre, Tim Dalgleish, Peter Watson, Christina Haag, Quentin Dercon, Julieta Galante, Caitlin Hitchcock","doi":"10.1136/bmjment-2023-300885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are increasingly offered at work, often in online self-guided format. However, the evidence on MBPs' effect on work performance (WP) is inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial assessed procedural uncertainties, intervention acceptability and preliminary effect sizes of an MBP on WP, relative to an alternative intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>241 employees from eight employers were randomised (1:1) to complete a 4-week, self-guided, online MBP or a light physical exercise programme (LE)(active control). Feasibility and acceptability measures were of primary interest. WP at postintervention (PostInt) was the primary outcome for preliminary assessment of effect sizes. Secondary outcomes assessed mental health (MH) and cognitive processes hypothesised to be targeted by the MBP. Outcomes were collected at baseline, PostInt and 12-week follow-up (12wFUP). Prospective trial protocol: NCT04631302.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>87% of randomised participants started the course. Courses had high acceptability. Retention rates were typical for online trials (64% PostInt; 30% 12wFUP). MBP, compared with the LE control, offered negligible benefits for WP (PostInt (<i>d</i>=0.06, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.32); 12wFUP (<i>d</i>=0.02, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.26)). Both interventions improved MH outcomes (<i>d</i>s=-0.40 to 0.58, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.18); between-group differences were small (<i>d</i>s=-0.09 to 0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.17).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The trial is feasible; interventions are acceptable. Results provide little support for a later phase trial comparing an MBP to a light exercise control. To inform future trials, we summarise procedural challenges.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>Results suggest MBPs are unlikely to improve WP relative to light physical exercise. Although the MBP improved MH, other active interventions may be just as efficacious.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04631302.</p>","PeriodicalId":72434,"journal":{"name":"BMJ mental health","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10910646/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Work Engagement and Well-being Study (SWELL): a randomised controlled feasibility trial evaluating the effects of mindfulness versus light physical exercise at work.\",\"authors\":\"Maris Vainre, Tim Dalgleish, Peter Watson, Christina Haag, Quentin Dercon, Julieta Galante, Caitlin Hitchcock\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjment-2023-300885\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are increasingly offered at work, often in online self-guided format. However, the evidence on MBPs' effect on work performance (WP) is inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial assessed procedural uncertainties, intervention acceptability and preliminary effect sizes of an MBP on WP, relative to an alternative intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>241 employees from eight employers were randomised (1:1) to complete a 4-week, self-guided, online MBP or a light physical exercise programme (LE)(active control). Feasibility and acceptability measures were of primary interest. WP at postintervention (PostInt) was the primary outcome for preliminary assessment of effect sizes. Secondary outcomes assessed mental health (MH) and cognitive processes hypothesised to be targeted by the MBP. Outcomes were collected at baseline, PostInt and 12-week follow-up (12wFUP). Prospective trial protocol: NCT04631302.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>87% of randomised participants started the course. Courses had high acceptability. Retention rates were typical for online trials (64% PostInt; 30% 12wFUP). MBP, compared with the LE control, offered negligible benefits for WP (PostInt (<i>d</i>=0.06, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.32); 12wFUP (<i>d</i>=0.02, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.26)). Both interventions improved MH outcomes (<i>d</i>s=-0.40 to 0.58, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.18); between-group differences were small (<i>d</i>s=-0.09 to 0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.17).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The trial is feasible; interventions are acceptable. Results provide little support for a later phase trial comparing an MBP to a light exercise control. To inform future trials, we summarise procedural challenges.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>Results suggest MBPs are unlikely to improve WP relative to light physical exercise. Although the MBP improved MH, other active interventions may be just as efficacious.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT04631302.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ mental health\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10910646/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ mental health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2023-300885\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2023-300885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景：基于正念的计划（MBPs）越来越多地在工作中提供，通常采用在线自我指导的形式。然而，有关正念计划对工作绩效（WP）影响的证据并不一致：方法：来自 8 个雇主的 241 名员工被随机分配（1:1），完成为期 4 周、自我指导的在线正念疗法或轻度体育锻炼计划（LE）（主动对照组）。可行性和可接受性是主要关注点。干预后（PostInt）的WP是初步评估效果大小的主要结果。次要结果是对心理健康（MH）和认知过程的评估，假设MBP的目标是心理健康（MH）和认知过程。结果在基线、干预后和 12 周随访（12wFUP）时收集。前瞻性试验方案：NCT04631302.Findings:87%的随机参与者开始了课程。课程的可接受性很高。保留率是在线试验的典型指标（64% 后期试验；30% 12wFUP）。与LE对照组相比，MBP对WP的益处微乎其微（PostInt（d=0.06，95% CI -0.19至0.32）；12wFUP（d=0.02，95% CI -0.30至0.26））。两种干预措施都改善了 MH 结果（ds=-0.40 至 0.58，95% CI -0.32 至 0.18）；组间差异很小（ds=-0.09 至 0.04，95% CI -0.15 至 0.17）：结论：试验是可行的；干预措施是可以接受的。试验结果几乎不支持将 MBP 与轻度运动对照进行比较的后期试验。为了给未来的试验提供参考，我们总结了程序方面的挑战：结果表明，相对于轻度体育锻炼，MBP 不太可能改善 WP。尽管MBP改善了MH，但其他积极的干预措施可能也同样有效：NCT04631302.
Work Engagement and Well-being Study (SWELL): a randomised controlled feasibility trial evaluating the effects of mindfulness versus light physical exercise at work.
Background: Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are increasingly offered at work, often in online self-guided format. However, the evidence on MBPs' effect on work performance (WP) is inconsistent.
Objective: This pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial assessed procedural uncertainties, intervention acceptability and preliminary effect sizes of an MBP on WP, relative to an alternative intervention.
Methods: 241 employees from eight employers were randomised (1:1) to complete a 4-week, self-guided, online MBP or a light physical exercise programme (LE)(active control). Feasibility and acceptability measures were of primary interest. WP at postintervention (PostInt) was the primary outcome for preliminary assessment of effect sizes. Secondary outcomes assessed mental health (MH) and cognitive processes hypothesised to be targeted by the MBP. Outcomes were collected at baseline, PostInt and 12-week follow-up (12wFUP). Prospective trial protocol: NCT04631302.
Findings: 87% of randomised participants started the course. Courses had high acceptability. Retention rates were typical for online trials (64% PostInt; 30% 12wFUP). MBP, compared with the LE control, offered negligible benefits for WP (PostInt (d=0.06, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.32); 12wFUP (d=0.02, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.26)). Both interventions improved MH outcomes (ds=-0.40 to 0.58, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.18); between-group differences were small (ds=-0.09 to 0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.17).
Conclusion: The trial is feasible; interventions are acceptable. Results provide little support for a later phase trial comparing an MBP to a light exercise control. To inform future trials, we summarise procedural challenges.
Clinical implications: Results suggest MBPs are unlikely to improve WP relative to light physical exercise. Although the MBP improved MH, other active interventions may be just as efficacious.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
