一項關於以幸福感為中心的干預措施的隨機對照試驗的系統評價和網絡薈萃分析 A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of well-being-focused interventions ——《自然/人類行為》2026年1月2日在線發表—— <Nature/Human Behaviour> Published: 02 January 2026 【摘要】提高人口幸福感日益被視為一項全球優先事項，但關於成人幸福感干預措施相對有效性的證據卻較為零散。本研究對已註冊的隨機對照試驗（PROSPERO CRD42023403480）進行系統評價和網絡薈萃分析，評估了針對未確診疾病的成年人的幸福感干預措施。我們檢索了 MEDLINE、PsycINFO、CENTRAL 和 Scopus 數據庫（截至 2023 年 3 月），共納入 183 項試驗（n = 22,811）。干預措施包括基於正念、基於同情、接受與承諾療法和積極心理學干預，以及運動、瑜伽、教育、基於自然的方案和運動-心理聯合干預方法。我們使用RoB 2工具評估了偏倚風險，並使用隨機效應網絡薈萃分析對數據進行綜合分析。與非干預對照組相比，大多數干預措施都能改善幸福感。運動-心理聯合干預措施效果最大（標準化均值差為 0.73，95% 置信區間為 0.27 至 1.20）。正念、同情、單一積極心理學、瑜伽和運動干預措施均顯示出中等且一致的效果（標準化均值差為 0.41-0.49），且各干預措施之間沒有顯著差異。基於自然的干預措施與對照組相比沒有顯著更有效，但由於概念和方法學上的異質性，相關證據有限。偏倚風險通常為中度至高度，漏斗圖不對稱表明可能存在發表偏倚。然而，多項敏感性分析（包括灰色文獻、排除高偏倚風險研究和小型研究）支持了總體結論的穩健性。使用CINEMA工具評估，大多數比較（71%）的證據確定性為中等。這些發現對幸福感干預文獻進行了綜合總結，並為未來跨學科、方法學嚴謹的研究指明了重點領域。 [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. 論文原文：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 （翻譯兼責任編輯：MART） （需要英文原文的朋友，請聯繫微信：millerdeng95或iacmsp）
|
