Scientific Publication Patterns of Systematic Reviews on Psychosocial Interventions Improving Well-being: Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite numerous empirical studies and systematic reviews conducted on the effectiveness of interventions improving psychological well-being, there is no holistic overview of published systematic reviews in this field. OBJECTIVE: This bibliometric study explored the scientific patterns of the effectiveness of different psychosocial interventions improving well-being among various categories of individuals with mental and physical diseases, to synthesize well-being intervention studies, and to suggest gaps and further studies in this emerging field. METHODS: The bibliometric analysis included identifying the most productive authors, institutions, and countries; most explored fields and subjects of study; most active journals and publishers; and performing citation analysis and analyzing publication trends between 2014 and 2022. We focused on data retrieved from known databases, and the study was conducted with a proven bibliometric approach. RESULTS: In total, 156 studies were found concerning the research domains and retrieved using LENS software from high-ranking databases (Crossref, Microsoft Academic, PubMed, and Core). These papers were written in English by 100 authors from 24 countries, among which, the leading country was the United Kingdom. Descriptive characteristics of the publications involved an increased number of publications in 2017 (n=35) and 2019 (n=34) and a decreased number in 2021 (n=4). The top 2 leading authors by citation score are James Thomas (3 papers and 260 citations) and Chris Dickens (3 papers and 182 citations). However, the most cited study had 592 citations. BMJ Open (n=6 articles) is the leading journal in the field of medicine; Clinical Psychology Review (n=5), in psychology; and Frontiers in Psychology, in psychological intervention (n=5) and psychology (n=5). The top 2 publishers were Wiley (n=28) and Elsevier (n=25). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates an overall interest in the declared domains within the last decade. Our findings primarily indicate that psychosocial interventions (PIs) were evaluated as being effective in managing mental and physical problems and enhancing well-being. Cognitive behavioral therapy was assessed as being effective in treating anxiety, psychoeducation in relapse prevention, and gratitude interventions in improving overall health, and the mindfulness approach had a positive impact on decreasing distress and depression. Moreover, all these intervention types resulted in an overall increase in an individuals' well-being and resilience. Integrating social and cultural factors while considering individual differences increases the efficiency of PIs. Furthermore, PIs were evaluated as being effective in managing symptoms of eating disorders, dementia, and cancer. Our findings could help provide researchers an overview of the publication trends on research domains of focus for further studies, since it shows current findings and potential research needs in these fields, and would also benefit practitioners working on increasing their own and their patients' well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.097 | 0.417 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.245 | 0.307 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".