Safety and health at work · 2026
Laughter-inducing Interventions for Workplace Stress Management: A Scoping Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Matteau Leonie, Gilbert-Ouimet Mahee, Stefan Theo, Demers Juliette, Jin Jenny, Toupin Isabelle, Medrano Moises C, Leblanc Annie
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mental health at work is a public health priority. Previous studies in the general population suggest that laughter-inducing interventions may support mental health. Their workplace potential warrants a scoping review. The aim of this study was to document, in the literature, the components and effectiveness of laughter-inducing interventions in the workplace.
METHODS: A structured search strategy was applied to 6 databases. Studies assessing laughter-inducing interventions among workers using interventional designs were included. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data and appraised studies using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Thematic analysis was performed to answer the research questions.
RESULTS: Out of the 613 records identified, twenty-five studies were included with samples of varying sizes (n = 7-200 participants) and professions. Laughter-inducing interventions included introduction (background, rationale) (n = 7), laughter exercises (n = 19), breathing (n = 15), warm-up (n = 10), chanting (n = 8), relaxation (n = 7), movements (n = 6), games (n = 3), and expression of feelings or feedback (n = 4). Intervention formats varied in sessions (1-28), duration (10-90 min), frequency (daily to monthly), and length (1-90 days). The most frequently investigated outcome was stress (n = 16) with results generally statistically significant (n = 12). There was a paucity of data informing the implementation process. The quality appraisal revealed poor quality with risks of selection and/or confounding bias (n = 17/17 among nonrandomized studies) and risks of information and/or selection bias (n = 5/6 in randomized studies).
CONCLUSION: While findings suggest that laughter-inducing interventions may be promising for reducing workplace stress, most included studies were of poor methodological quality, warranting cautious interpretation. Further research is needed due to methodological heterogeneity and limitations.
METHODS: A structured search strategy was applied to 6 databases. Studies assessing laughter-inducing interventions among workers using interventional designs were included. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data and appraised studies using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Thematic analysis was performed to answer the research questions.
RESULTS: Out of the 613 records identified, twenty-five studies were included with samples of varying sizes (n = 7-200 participants) and professions. Laughter-inducing interventions included introduction (background, rationale) (n = 7), laughter exercises (n = 19), breathing (n = 15), warm-up (n = 10), chanting (n = 8), relaxation (n = 7), movements (n = 6), games (n = 3), and expression of feelings or feedback (n = 4). Intervention formats varied in sessions (1-28), duration (10-90 min), frequency (daily to monthly), and length (1-90 days). The most frequently investigated outcome was stress (n = 16) with results generally statistically significant (n = 12). There was a paucity of data informing the implementation process. The quality appraisal revealed poor quality with risks of selection and/or confounding bias (n = 17/17 among nonrandomized studies) and risks of information and/or selection bias (n = 5/6 in randomized studies).
CONCLUSION: While findings suggest that laughter-inducing interventions may be promising for reducing workplace stress, most included studies were of poor methodological quality, warranting cautious interpretation. Further research is needed due to methodological heterogeneity and limitations.