Efficacy of journaling in the management of mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The broadest evidence review on journaling itself rather than gratitude specifically. Across 20 randomised controlled trials, journaling produced a greater reduction in patient health measures than control - a small to moderate benefit - which the authors judge strong enough to recommend as an adjunct, not as a treatment.
If you want one citation on whether journaling - not gratitude specifically - helps, this is it.
The authors screened 3,797 articles and kept 20 peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials covering 31 outcomes, across PTSD, anxiety disorders, depression, or a combination.
There was a significant difference between control arms and intervention arms in pre-post psychometric change, with intervention arms improving more. The gap works out at roughly 5%. Cohen’s d analysis suggests a small to moderate benefit.
Then they say the quiet part out loud. The data are highly heterogeneous, methodological flaws limit what can be concluded, and the recommendation is B-level. Their own summary is that further studies are needed to better define the outcomes.
Their practical conclusion is measured and, we think, correct: given the low risk of adverse effects, low resource requirement and emphasis on self-efficacy, journaling is worth considering as an adjunct that complements evidence-based care.
If you are dealing with a mental health condition, this study is a reason to talk to a clinician about journaling - not a reason to substitute it for one.
The authors are unusually blunt about their own limits: the data are highly heterogeneous and methodological flaws prevent definitive conclusions about benefit or effect size. It carries a B-level recommendation, not an A. The measured gap between intervention and control arms was about 5% - real, and small. It is not evidence journaling can replace treatment.
Articles citing this study
Summarized by Tiago Martins · Last updated: · How we write these
