Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Work Engagement and Well-being Study (SWELL): a randomised controlled feasibility trial evaluating the effects of mindfulness versus light physical exercise at work
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Work Engagement and Well-being Study (SWELL): a randomised controlled feasibility trial evaluating the effects of mindfulness versus light physical exercise at work
Do you wish to request the book?
Work Engagement and Well-being Study (SWELL): a randomised controlled feasibility trial evaluating the effects of mindfulness versus light physical exercise at work
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Work Engagement and Well-being Study (SWELL): a randomised controlled feasibility trial evaluating the effects of mindfulness versus light physical exercise at work
2024
Overview
BackgroundMindfulness-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.ObjectiveThis pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial assessed procedural uncertainties, intervention acceptability and preliminary effect sizes of an MBP on WP, relative to an alternative intervention.Methods241 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.Findings87% 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).ConclusionThe 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 implicationsResults 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.Trial registration numberNCT04631302.
