Tang Lei, Zhang Fan, Yin Ruoyun, Fan Zhaoya
School of Public Health and Management, Research Center for Medicine and Social Development, Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Risks Governance in Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Front Psychol. 2021 Feb 26;12:645662. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.645662. eCollection 2021.
This study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of all intervention for learning burnout by meta-analyzing their effects. Relevant studies that had been published up to September 18, 2020, were identified through a systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wan Fang databases. Eligible studies included randomized control trials of any learning burnout intervention conducted among students. The Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of the study. Random-effect meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, meta-regression analysis, and sensitivity analysis were conducted. Funnel plots and Egger's tests were used to evaluate publication bias. Duval and Tweedie's non-parametric trim-and-fill method was used to adjust the effect of publication bias. Of the 5,245 articles found, 39 met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. There were 3,400 students, including 1,847 students in the intervention group and 1,553 in the control group. A meta-analysis of 44 studies showed that the interventions were effective. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to education, scales, intervention measures, and intervention time. The results showed that, compared with the control group, the learning burnout scores of undergraduates, secondary vocational students, and middle school students were significantly lower. Based on different scales, all interventions were also effective. The funnel plot was asymmetric and consistent with the results of Egger's test. The trim-and-fill method was used, and seven missing studies were merged to obtain a symmetric funnel plot. This meta-analysis indicated that learning burnout interventions are effective. The subgroup analyses showed that group counseling is the most widely used, exercise intervention is probably the most effective, and 8 weeks or more is the appropriate intervention time. An integrated intervention study based on the factors of learning burnout adds value. More studies are needed to supplement the results in the future.
本研究旨在通过对学习倦怠干预措施的效果进行荟萃分析，全面了解所有相关干预措施。通过系统检索PubMed、科学网、中国知网（CNKI）和万方数据库，确定了截至2020年9月18日已发表的相关研究。符合条件的研究包括在学生中进行的任何学习倦怠干预的随机对照试验。使用Jadad量表评估研究质量。进行了随机效应荟萃分析、亚组分析、元回归分析和敏感性分析。采用漏斗图和Egger检验评估发表偏倚。使用Duval和Tweedie的非参数修剪填充法调整发表偏倚的影响。在检索到的5245篇文章中，39篇符合系统评价的纳入标准。共有3400名学生，其中干预组1847名学生，对照组1553名学生。对44项研究的荟萃分析表明，这些干预措施是有效的。根据教育程度、量表、干预措施和干预时间进行了亚组分析。结果表明，与对照组相比，本科生、中等职业学校学生和中学生的学习倦怠得分显著更低。基于不同量表，所有干预措施也都有效。漏斗图不对称，与Egger检验结果一致。使用了修剪填充法，合并了7项缺失研究以获得对称的漏斗图。这项荟萃分析表明，学习倦怠干预措施是有效的。亚组分析表明，团体辅导使用最为广泛，运动干预可能最有效，8周或更长时间是合适的干预时间。基于学习倦怠因素的综合干预研究具有价值。未来需要更多研究来补充这些结果。
