一项关于以幸福感为中心的干预措施的随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析
一项关于以幸福感为中心的干预措施的随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of well-being-focused interventions
——《自然/人类行为》2026年1月2日在线发表——
【摘要】提高人口幸福感日益被视为一项全球优先事项，但关于成人幸福感干预措施相对有效性的证据却较为零散。本研究对已注册的随机对照试验（PROSPERO CRD42023403480）进行系统评价和网络荟萃分析，评估了针对未确诊疾病的成年人的幸福感干预措施。我们检索了 MEDLINE、PsycINFO、CENTRAL 和 Scopus 数据库（截至 2023 年 3 月），共纳入 183 项试验（n = 22,811）。干预措施包括基于正念、基于同情、接受与承诺疗法和积极心理学干预，以及运动、瑜伽、教育、基于自然的方案和运动-心理联合干预方法。我们使用RoB 2工具评估了偏倚风险，并使用随机效应网络荟萃分析对数据进行综合分析。与非干预对照组相比，大多数干预措施都能改善幸福感。运动-心理联合干预措施效果最大（标准化均值差为 0.73，95% 置信区间为 0.27 至 1.20）。正念、同情、单一积极心理学、瑜伽和运动干预措施均显示出中等且一致的效果（标准化均值差为 0.41-0.49），且各干预措施之间没有显著差异。基于自然的干预措施与对照组相比没有显著更有效，但由于概念和方法学上的异质性，相关证据有限。偏倚风险通常为中度至高度，漏斗图不对称表明可能存在发表偏倚。然而，多项敏感性分析（包括灰色文献、排除高偏倚风险研究和小型研究）支持了总体结论的稳健性。使用CINEMA工具评估，大多数比较（71%）的证据确定性为中等。这些发现对幸福感干预文献进行了综合总结，并为未来跨学科、方法学严谨的研究指明了重点领域。
[Abstract] Improving population well-being is increasingly recognized as a global priority, yet evidence on the comparative effectiveness of well-being-focused interventions in adults is fragmented. Here we conduct a preregistered systematic review and network meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023403480) of randomized controlled trials evaluating well-being interventions in adults without diagnosed conditions. Searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and Scopus (to March 2023) identified 183 trials (n?=?22,811). Interventions included mindfulness-based, compassion-based, acceptance and commitment therapy and positive psychology interventions, as well as exercise, yoga, educational, nature-based programmes and combined exercise-psychological approaches. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, and data were synthesized using random-effects network meta-analysis. Most interventions improved well-being compared with inactive controls. Combined exercise-psychological interventions produced the largest effect (standardized mean difference of 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 1.20). Mindfulness, compassion, single positive psychology, yoga and exercise interventions demonstrated moderate, consistent effects (standardized mean difference of 0.41–0.49), with no significant differences between interventions. Nature-based interventions were not significantly more effective than controls, but evidence was limited by conceptual and methodological heterogeneity. Risk of bias was frequently moderate to high, and funnel plot asymmetry suggested potential publication bias. However, multiple sensitivity analyses (including grey literature, excluding studies with high risk of bias and small studies) supported the robustness of overall conclusions. Most comparisons (71%) were rated as moderate in certainty of evidence using CINEMA. These findings provide an integrated synthesis of the well-being intervention literature and highlight priority areas for future interdisciplinary, methodologically robust research.
论文原文：Lowri Wilkie, Zoe Fisher, Antonia Geidel, Isabel Goodall, Shannon Kamil, Elen Davies & Andrew Haddon Kemp (2026). A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of well-being-focused interventions. Nature/Human Behaviour, Published: 02 January 2026
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02369-1
（翻译兼责任编辑：MART）
（需要英文原文的朋友，请联系微信：millerdeng95或iacmsp）
