Are character strength-based positive interventions effective for eliciting positive behavioral outcomes? A meta-analytic review

Abstract

Research on strengths-based positive interventions (SBPIs) has often supported their effectiveness, but these studies overwhelmingly focus on experiential outcomes such as affect and subjective well-being. Much less is known about their effectiveness for eliciting positive behavioral outcomes. The current article provides a lexicon to clarify distinctions between various types of positive interventions. This is followed by a meta-analysis of studies examining behavioral outcomes from SBPIs. Multiple databases were searched through October 2020. Out of 418 studies evaluating what could be considered SBPIs, only 48 analyses across 29 articles examined group differences in a behavioral outcome. Random-effects meta-analysis of post-test data revealed a small to medium, statistically significant effect, Hedges’ g= 0.32. Evidence was insufficient to suggest small-study or methodological bias. SBPIs seemed effective for eliciting behavioral change relative to control conditions consistent with prior meta-analyses. However, the available data are too limited to support SBPIs as an alternative to traditional approaches that focus on direct symptom reduction.

Whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review

“…We also identified strengths of individual WPAs, which could be incorporated into existing assessments, or combined to design a novel WPA for GP. These include: (1) Prioritising active patient involvement and aiming to use assessment to strengthen the therapeutic relationship,43 44 46 49–51 54–59 66 69 71–73 76 77 79 83 84 86 87 which are key aspects of patient-centred care21 22; (2) Breadth of assessment, including all domains of the person (see figure 2); (3) Assessment of patient strengths as well as difficulties,43–46 55–58 60 62–64 66 68 71–80 88 reflecting strengths-based approaches previously shown to improve outcomes102; (4) Flexibility, through providing a broad framework from which the clinician selects relevant aspects to accommodate varying patient needs and time constraints43–45 49 54 55 61 65 67 71 73 76 77 79 80 87 92 96 97; (5) A longitudinal perspective, through guiding initial assessment while acknowledging that full detail can emerge over time to align with long-term GP care42 45 49 54 60 64 67 69–72 77 78 81 84–86 88 95; (6) Facilitated information synthesis and clinical reasoning45 73 77 96–98 103 and (7) A direct link between assessment and care planning 45–54 56–66 68 70 71 73 78 80 85 88. Assessments should also have a clear theoretical basis, such as that described previously,13 15 be developed with patient and clinician input, and be appropriately validated/evaluated.…”