14 sources: 8 meta-analyses, 1 narrative review, 2 randomised controlled trials, 2 systematic reviews, 1 with design not recorded
Spiritual · Practice
Loving-Kindness and Compassion Meditation
A guided practice of directing warm intentions toward yourself and others: one way to carry out what the compassion sources studied; Petrovic 2024 reports loving-kindness programs had positive effects relative to passive controls, with effects non-significant against active controls and alternative treatments.
Beta content: this dimension's review set is version 0.9-beta and upgrades in place after the Round-2 internal reviews.
8 of 15 sources behind this entry were read from the abstract only; they are marked in the sources list.
15 min · 3-5x-weekly
Beginner-friendlyHome
Before you start
Start small and suggest professional support if distress persists.
When to seek a professional
- Persistent hopelessness, emptiness, or a sense that life is meaningless lasting more than two weeks: encourage contact with a licensed mental-health professional
- Any thoughts of self-harm or suicide, or feeling life is not worth living: direct the user to a crisis line or emergency services immediately
- Acute existential or spiritual crisis causing marked distress or inability to function: refer to a counselor, chaplain, or clinician
- Signs the user is using reflection to avoid unresolved grief, trauma, or clinical depression: recommend professional support
How to do it
10-15 minute guided meditation, 3-5 times per week
The research behind this entry establishes something about dose, but not these exact parameters; treat them as a practical way to apply the finding rather than as the finding itself.
Optional audio guide or appFor most adultsAny belief backgroundNo religious content
What the evidence says
What the sources say
This practice is one way to carry out what the compassion and mindfulness sources on the concept entry (emo.self-compassion) studied. Petrovic 2024 (meta-analysis of randomised studies) reports that loving-kindness programs had positive effects on mindfulness, compassion, positive and negative affect and psychological symptoms relative to passive controls, with effects non-significant against active controls and alternative treatments; Wilkie 2026 (network meta-analysis) reports moderate effects for mindfulness, compassion and other programs against inactive controls; Kunzler 2020 (Cochrane meta-analysis) reports very-low certainty evidence that resilience training may increase resilience. The full account, source by source, is on the concept entry this practice links to (emo.self-compassion).
Common misconceptions
- It is a secular attention practice, not a religious ritual or prayer to a deity
- Self-kindness is not self-indulgence or lowering standards
What we won't claim
- Do not prescribe, rank, or endorse any specific religion, deity, faith tradition, or belief system
- Do not claim these practices cure, treat, reverse, or prevent any disease or mental illness
- Do not make claims about an afterlife, the soul, the supernatural, or any metaphysical truth
- Do not present correlational or observational findings as proof that the practice causes health outcomes
- Do not position these practices as a substitute for medical care or psychological treatment
14 sources: 8 meta-analyses, 1 narrative review, 2 randomised controlled trials, 2 systematic reviews, 1 with design not recorded
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 14 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- A source states a certainty rating for 3 outcomes.
- How the sources were read
- Some sources are based on abstracts, not full texts.
What each source measured and concluded (14)
meta-analysis · 2023
Wu et al. (2023) — The effectiveness of mind-body approaches for enhancing resilience in older adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
- What it measured
- Resilience
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 9 studies (N NR)
meta-analysis · 2020
Lupșa et al. (2020) — Increasing Psychological Capital: A Pre‐Registered Meta‐Analysis of Controlled Interventions
- What it measured
- Psychological capital (PsyCap), well-being, and performance
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Pre-registered meta-analysis of controlled interventions
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 41 trials, N=3,911
meta-analysis · 2020
Kunzler et al. (2020) — Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students.
- What it measured
- Resilience, anxiety, depression, stress, well-being/quality of life
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs (Cochrane)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 30 RCTs (22 studies solely healthcare students, 1315 participants; 8 mixed samples, 1365 participants)
meta-analysis · 2020
Tam et al. (2020) — The effectiveness of reminiscence-based intervention on improving psychological well-being in cognitively intact older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
- What it measured
- Psychological well-being outcomes (depression, life satisfaction, self-esteem, happiness)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 31 studies, 1,829 older adults
meta-analysis · 2024
Petrovic et al. (2024) — The effects of loving-kindness interventions on positive and negative mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
- What it measured
- Positive and negative mental health outcomes (mindfulness, compassion, positive/negative affect, psychological symptoms)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 23 randomized controlled studies
systematic review · 2025
McHugh et al. (2025) — Effective Solutions for Caregivers of Older Adults: A Review of Systematic Reviews
- What it measured
- Caregiver depression, burden, and quality of life
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Umbrella review (review of systematic reviews)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 40 systematic reviews
systematic review · 2026
Esquitino et al. (2026) — The effectiveness of group-based psychological interventions for emotional distress in non-clinical adult populations: a systematic review
- What it measured
- Effectiveness of group-based psychological interventions in reducing emotional distress
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=20 studies (from 4,942 records)
randomised controlled trial · 2020
Hendriks et al. (2020) — Resilience and well-being in the Caribbean: Findings from a randomized controlled trial of a culturally adapted multi-component positive psychology intervention
- What it measured
- Resilience (and well-being)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
meta-analysis · 2024
Yüce et al. (2024) — The effect of mindfulness-based interventions on caregiver burden, quality of life and psychological distress in caregivers of adults with chronic diseases: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
- What it measured
- Stress, anxiety, depression, caregiver burden, mindfulness, resilience, quality of life.
- How it measured it
- Validated instruments (not specified).
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis of 12 studies
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=748 participants across 12 studies
meta-analysis · 2026
Wilkie et al. (2026) — A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of well-being-focused interventions
- What it measured
- Psychological well-being.
- How it measured it
- Perceived Wellness Score, Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): Mental Component Subscale, World Health Organization Wellbeing Scale (WHO-5), PANAS-Positive Affect.
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and network meta-analysis of 183 RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=22,811 participants across 183 studies
randomised controlled trial · 2021
Diachenko et al. (2021) — Pre-retirement Employees Experience Lasting Improvements in Resilience and Well-Being After Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction
- What it measured
- Perceived stress.
- How it measured it
- Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (self-report).
- Its conclusion, in its own words
- “We argue that MBSR is a cost-effective intervention suited for pre-retirement employees to cultivate resilience to prevent stress, feel more comfortable with themselves, maintain a healthy work-life in the last years before retirement, and, potentially, stay in their work-life a few more years than originally planned.”
- How it was read
- read in full text
meta-analysis · 2025
Chen et al. (2025) — The efficacy of psychosocial interventions in relieving family caregiver burden in older adults with disabilities: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
- What it measured
- Caregiver burden (standardised mean differences)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 31 trials with 4687 participants
narrative review · 2009
Fava et al. (2009) — Increasing psychological well-being and resilience by psychotherapeutic methods.
- What it measured
- Psychological well-being and resilience
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
design not recorded · 2015
Johnson et al. (2015) — Resilience Training: A Pilot Study of a Mindfulness-Based Program with Depressed Healthcare Professionals.
- What it measured
- Depression and other psychological/behavioral outcomes
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
Certainty ratings the sources state (3)
Wu et al. (2023), for its own outcome
- Rating, as the source states it
- High
- Framework
- not named by the source
- Applies to
- High-quality evidence shows physical/psychological and yoga-related MBA modes enhance resilience in older adults, though long-term verification is needed
- Stated by
- Wu et al. (2023)
Kunzler et al. (2020), for its own outcome
- Rating, as the source states it
- Very-low
- Framework
- not named by the source
- Applies to
- Very-low certainty evidence that resilience training may increase resilience (SMD 0.43, 95% CI 0.07-0.78), lower anxiety (SMD -0.45, -0.84 to -0.06) and stress (SMD -0.28, -0.48 to -0.09); little/no effect on depression (SMD -0.20) or well-being (SMD 0.15)
- Stated by
- Kunzler et al. (2020)
- Rating, as the source states it
- Very-low
- Framework
- not named by the source
- Applies to
- Very-low certainty evidence for effects on resilience, anxiety and stress; conclusions should be drawn cautiously and high-quality replications are needed
- Stated by
- Kunzler et al. (2020)
Key sources (15) · 1 not counted
Each source below is shown with its study design and a link to the original study, or, where it is not a completed research paper, with what kind of record it is; those are not counted. This is the audit trail.
meta-analysisThe effectiveness of mind-body approaches for enhancing resilience in older adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
meta-analysisIncreasing Psychological Capital: A Pre‐Registered Meta‐Analysis of Controlled Interventions
meta-analysisPsychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students.
meta-analysisThe effectiveness of reminiscence-based intervention on improving psychological well-being in cognitively intact older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
meta-analysisThe effects of loving-kindness interventions on positive and negative mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
systematic reviewEffective Solutions for Caregivers of Older Adults: A Review of Systematic Reviews
systematic reviewThe effectiveness of group-based psychological interventions for emotional distress in non-clinical adult populations: a systematic review
randomised controlled trialResilience and well-being in the Caribbean: Findings from a randomized controlled trial of a culturally adapted multi-component positive psychology intervention
meta-analysisThe effect of mindfulness-based interventions on caregiver burden, quality of life and psychological distress in caregivers of adults with chronic diseases: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
meta-analysisA systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of well-being-focused interventions
randomised controlled trialPre-retirement Employees Experience Lasting Improvements in Resilience and Well-Being After Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction
Type not recordedLeveraging Mindfulness to Build Resilience and Professional Quality of Life in Human Service Professionals
meta-analysisThe efficacy of psychosocial interventions in relieving family caregiver burden in older adults with disabilities: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
narrative reviewIncreasing psychological well-being and resilience by psychotherapeutic methods.
design not recordedResilience Training: A Pilot Study of a Mindfulness-Based Program with Depressed Healthcare Professionals.
Why do some records show a record type instead of a study design?
A study design is shown for a completed, peer-reviewed paper. A registered protocol, a preprint, a conference abstract, a referee report or a book chapter has not been through peer review as a finished paper, so it is labelled for what it is, and it is counted in no source count. Where a record could not be confirmed as a completed paper at all, it says so rather than guessing. They all stay in the list, and their DOI still resolves, because the count of what was screened is part of the audit trail.
- Protocol / registration A registered plan for a review or trial, not its results.
- Preprint Posted by its authors before peer review.
- Conference abstract A conference summary rather than a peer-reviewed paper.
- Peer-review report A referee's report on a paper, not the paper itself.
- Guideline / position stand A recommendation derived from evidence, which is a step further from the data than the evidence itself.
- Book chapter A chapter in a scholarly book rather than a journal paper.
- Type not recorded Our record does not say what kind of publication this is, so it is counted in no source count. That is a gap in our data, not a judgement about the research.
“Abstract only” means the review read that paper’s abstract, not its full text; “screened only” means it was included at re-screening and not extracted. Both stay in the trail with their DOI, because how a source was read is part of the audit.
Explore all 299 studies in Spiritual →
The full evidence base this focus area draws on, every study with its design and DOI.What it is for
Be kinder to myselfBe more presentFeel more connected to people