Corrigendum: What kind of intervention is effective for improving subjective well-being among workers? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (Frontiers in Psychology, (2020), 11, (528656), 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.528656)

In the published article, there was an error in affiliation 3 as published. The affiliation was listed as “Center for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center Japan, Tokyo, Japan” but should be “Center for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan.” Affiliation 3 has now been updated. In the published article, there was an error. In the results section, “one meditation awareness training (acceptance commitment therapy: ACT)” was written in error. The correct term is “one meditation awareness training (MAT) intervention.” A correction has been made to Results, Mindfulness. The corrected section is shown below. Six mindfulness intervention studies were included. Among these, three were mindfulness-related group sessions (Aikens et al., 2014; Van Berkel et al., 2014; Crain et al., 2017), one was self-training (Hülsheger et al., 2013), and the other was a web-based program (Allexandre et al., 2016). In addition, one meditation awareness training (MAT) intervention was also reported (Shonin et al., 2014). These mindfulness programs were effective for improving evaluative well-being (e.g., job satisfaction and life satisfaction) (Hülsheger et al., 2013; Shonin et al., 2014; Crain et al., 2017), hedonic well-being (e.g., vigor/vitality) (Aikens et al., 2014; Allexandre et al., 2016), and the mental component of QOL (Allexandre et al., 2016). There was also an error in Table 1 as published. The “period” and “number and hours of session” of the intervention in column “Core intervention component” for Bolier et al. (2014) were displayed as “6 weeks−12months” and “4–8 weekly sessions”, respectively. The correct terms are “4 weeks−5months” and “a few sessions or modules,” respectively. The corrected Table 1 and its caption appear below. The characteristics of the studies included in the systematic reviews (N = 39). +, favorable effect; –, unfavorable effect; 0, no effect; SWB, subjective well-being; Int, intervention; Cont, control. The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.