弹性相关干预对医疗保健专业人员的弹性和压力的比较有效性:随机对照试验的网络荟萃分析

IF 7.1 1区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Fitria Endah Janitra , Ruey Chen , Chien-Mei Sung , Chia-Hui Wang , Yan Adi Wibawa , Kondwani Joseph Banda , Kai-Jo Chiang , Kuei-Ru Chou
{"title":"弹性相关干预对医疗保健专业人员的弹性和压力的比较有效性:随机对照试验的网络荟萃分析","authors":"Fitria Endah Janitra ,&nbsp;Ruey Chen ,&nbsp;Chien-Mei Sung ,&nbsp;Chia-Hui Wang ,&nbsp;Yan Adi Wibawa ,&nbsp;Kondwani Joseph Banda ,&nbsp;Kai-Jo Chiang ,&nbsp;Kuei-Ru Chou","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2025.105151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Healthcare professionals face high workloads, emotional strain, and chronic stress, underscoring the need for effective strategies to enhance resilience. However, the comparative effectiveness of resilience-related interventions in this population remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various interventions in improving resilience and reducing stress among healthcare professionals.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search was conducted across eight databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest) on March 20, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials of resilience-related interventions for healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals included nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, and mixed clinical staff groups. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted in R using the <em>netmeta</em> package, applying random-effects models and standardized mean differences (SMDs). This method estimates relative effects by combining direct and indirect comparisons across interventions. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's <em>Q</em>, <em>τ</em><sup><em>2</em></sup>, and <em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup>. Subgroup analyses explored potential effect modifiers, and <em>P</em>-scores ranked the comparative effectiveness of interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcomes were resilience and stress, measured post-intervention, with resilience additionally assessed at a 3-month follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Immediately after the intervention, positive psychology demonstrated the largest and significantly greater improvement in resilience (SMD = 0.57, 95 % CI: 0.36 to 0.78), followed by mindfulness (SMD = 0.50, 95 % CI: 0.24 to 0.76) and cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD = 0.47, 95 % CI: 0.23 to 0.71), all indicating moderate to large and statistically significant effects. At 3-month follow-up, positive psychology remained the most effective (SMD = 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.02 to 1.36), followed by mindfulness and cognitive behavioral therapy. For stress outcomes, positive psychology showed a significantly high effect (SMD = −<!--> <!-->0.69, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->1.08 to −<!--> <!-->0.29), as did cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD = −<!--> <!-->0.58, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->0.86 to −<!--> <!-->0.30) and mindfulness (SMD = −<!--> <!-->0.58, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->0.94 to −<!--> <!-->0.21). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of the findings.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Positive psychology, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy were the most effective interventions for enhancing resilience and reducing stress among healthcare professionals, with some sustained effects at follow-up. These results support the implementation of structured, evidence-based resilience programs to improve mental well-being and job performance in healthcare settings.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>PROSPERO (CRD42024518166).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50299,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","volume":"170 ","pages":"Article 105151"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative effectiveness of resilience-related interventions on resilience and stress for healthcare professionals: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials\",\"authors\":\"Fitria Endah Janitra ,&nbsp;Ruey Chen ,&nbsp;Chien-Mei Sung ,&nbsp;Chia-Hui Wang ,&nbsp;Yan Adi Wibawa ,&nbsp;Kondwani Joseph Banda ,&nbsp;Kai-Jo Chiang ,&nbsp;Kuei-Ru Chou\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2025.105151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Healthcare professionals face high workloads, emotional strain, and chronic stress, underscoring the need for effective strategies to enhance resilience. However, the comparative effectiveness of resilience-related interventions in this population remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various interventions in improving resilience and reducing stress among healthcare professionals.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search was conducted across eight databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest) on March 20, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials of resilience-related interventions for healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals included nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, and mixed clinical staff groups. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted in R using the <em>netmeta</em> package, applying random-effects models and standardized mean differences (SMDs). This method estimates relative effects by combining direct and indirect comparisons across interventions. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's <em>Q</em>, <em>τ</em><sup><em>2</em></sup>, and <em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup>. Subgroup analyses explored potential effect modifiers, and <em>P</em>-scores ranked the comparative effectiveness of interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcomes were resilience and stress, measured post-intervention, with resilience additionally assessed at a 3-month follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Immediately after the intervention, positive psychology demonstrated the largest and significantly greater improvement in resilience (SMD = 0.57, 95 % CI: 0.36 to 0.78), followed by mindfulness (SMD = 0.50, 95 % CI: 0.24 to 0.76) and cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD = 0.47, 95 % CI: 0.23 to 0.71), all indicating moderate to large and statistically significant effects. At 3-month follow-up, positive psychology remained the most effective (SMD = 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.02 to 1.36), followed by mindfulness and cognitive behavioral therapy. For stress outcomes, positive psychology showed a significantly high effect (SMD = −<!--> <!-->0.69, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->1.08 to −<!--> <!-->0.29), as did cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD = −<!--> <!-->0.58, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->0.86 to −<!--> <!-->0.30) and mindfulness (SMD = −<!--> <!-->0.58, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->0.94 to −<!--> <!-->0.21). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of the findings.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Positive psychology, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy were the most effective interventions for enhancing resilience and reducing stress among healthcare professionals, with some sustained effects at follow-up. These results support the implementation of structured, evidence-based resilience programs to improve mental well-being and job performance in healthcare settings.</div></div><div><h3>Registration</h3><div>PROSPERO (CRD42024518166).</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Nursing Studies\",\"volume\":\"170 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Nursing Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748925001610\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748925001610","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医疗保健专业人员面临高工作量、情绪紧张和慢性压力,强调需要有效的策略来增强弹性。然而,在这一人群中,与恢复力相关的干预措施的相对有效性仍不清楚。本研究旨在评估和比较各种干预措施在提高医疗保健专业人员的复原力和减少压力方面的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative effectiveness of resilience-related interventions on resilience and stress for healthcare professionals: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Healthcare professionals face high workloads, emotional strain, and chronic stress, underscoring the need for effective strategies to enhance resilience. However, the comparative effectiveness of resilience-related interventions in this population remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various interventions in improving resilience and reducing stress among healthcare professionals.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted across eight databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest) on March 20, 2025, to identify randomized controlled trials of resilience-related interventions for healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals included nurses, physicians, allied health professionals, and mixed clinical staff groups. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted in R using the netmeta package, applying random-effects models and standardized mean differences (SMDs). This method estimates relative effects by combining direct and indirect comparisons across interventions. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's Q, τ2, and I2. Subgroup analyses explored potential effect modifiers, and P-scores ranked the comparative effectiveness of interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The primary outcomes were resilience and stress, measured post-intervention, with resilience additionally assessed at a 3-month follow-up.

Results

Immediately after the intervention, positive psychology demonstrated the largest and significantly greater improvement in resilience (SMD = 0.57, 95 % CI: 0.36 to 0.78), followed by mindfulness (SMD = 0.50, 95 % CI: 0.24 to 0.76) and cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD = 0.47, 95 % CI: 0.23 to 0.71), all indicating moderate to large and statistically significant effects. At 3-month follow-up, positive psychology remained the most effective (SMD = 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.02 to 1.36), followed by mindfulness and cognitive behavioral therapy. For stress outcomes, positive psychology showed a significantly high effect (SMD = − 0.69, 95 % CI: − 1.08 to − 0.29), as did cognitive behavioral therapy (SMD = − 0.58, 95 % CI: − 0.86 to − 0.30) and mindfulness (SMD = − 0.58, 95 % CI: − 0.94 to − 0.21). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of the findings.

Conclusion

Positive psychology, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy were the most effective interventions for enhancing resilience and reducing stress among healthcare professionals, with some sustained effects at follow-up. These results support the implementation of structured, evidence-based resilience programs to improve mental well-being and job performance in healthcare settings.

Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42024518166).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
181
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS) is a highly respected journal that has been publishing original peer-reviewed articles since 1963. It provides a forum for original research and scholarship about health care delivery, organisation, management, workforce, policy, and research methods relevant to nursing, midwifery, and other health related professions. The journal aims to support evidence informed policy and practice by publishing research, systematic and other scholarly reviews, critical discussion, and commentary of the highest standard. The IJNS is indexed in major databases including PubMed, Medline, Thomson Reuters - Science Citation Index, Scopus, Thomson Reuters - Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, and the BNI (British Nursing Index).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信