Methods
Search Strategy
Definition of Terms
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Study Selection
Study Methodological and Mediation Quality Rating Assessments
Results
Overview of Studies
Authors | Design | Sample | Predictor — SCS measure | Mediator/s | Mediator measure/s | Physical health outcome | Outcome measure | Downs and Black quality rating |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Butz & Stahlberg, 2018; Study 1 | Cross-sectional | 68 university students (M = 21.41 years, SD = 5.65), 75% female | SCS-SF (α = .82) | Rumination | 4-items from Rumination Response Scale (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991); (α = .82) | Sleep quality | Insomnia Severity Index (Bastien et al., 2001); (α = .80) | 60%; moderate |
Butz & Stahlberg, 2018; Study 2 | Randomized controlled trial (session 1 = conducted at lab, sessions 2 and 3 = home online survey) | 143 university students (M = 22.59 years, SD = 3.43), 45% female. 33% lost at session 2 (n = 143); 9% lost at session 3 (n = 88) | SCS (α = .94) (session 1) | Rumination (session 3) | 10 items from revisited Rumination Response Scale (Treynor et al., 1991); (α = .82) | Sleep quality (session 3) | Sleep Quality Index (Jenkins et al., 1988) with an added item; (α = .84) | 44%; low |
Dunne et al., 2018 | Cross-sectional | 147 adults (M = 32.28 years, SD = 9.6), 81% female | SCS (α = 0.94) | Health-promoting behaviors | The 10-item Wellness Behaviors Inventory (WBI; Sirois, 2001); (α = 0.64) | Physical symptoms | The 33-item Symptoms of Illness Checklist (Stowell et al., 2009); (α = 0.87) | 60%; moderate |
Finlay-Jones et al., 2015 | Cross-sectional | 198 psychologists or trainees (M = 36.25 years, SD = 11.79), 86% female | SCS-SF (α = 0.90) | Emotion regulation difficulties | The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) — except Awareness subscale (α = ranging from .75 to .91) | Stress | Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) — only the stress subscale was used; (α = .85) | 67%; moderate |
Homan & Sirois, 2017 | Cross-sectional | 176 Amazon’s Mechanical Turk users (M = 31.6 years, SD = 10.1), 45% female | SCS-SF (α = 0.82) | (1) Perceived stress, (2) health behaviors (general health protective practices) | (1) Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen & Williamson, 1988); (α = .92), (2) four subscales from the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLPII; Walker et al., 1995); (α = not reported) | Physical health | RAND 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36; Hays & Morales, 2001); only the physical component summary (PCS) was used; (α ranging from = .81 (pain) to .89 (mental health)) | 60%; moderate |
Hu et al., 2018; Study 1 | Cross-sectional | 142 university students (M = 20.07 years, SD = 2.36), 55% female | SCS-SF (α = 0.76) | Perceived stress | Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983); (α = 0.77) | Sleep quality | The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI; Buysse et al., 1989); (α = 0.72) | 60%; moderate |
Hwang et al., 2019 | Cross-sectional | 231 educators (M = 42.26 years, SD = 11.76), 87% female | SCS-SF (α = 0.87) | Perceived stress | Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983); (α = 0.86) | Sleep quality | The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI; Buysse et al., 1989); (α = 0.74) | 53%; low |
Li et al., 2020 | Longitudinal | 82 employees (M = 35.18 years, SD = 5.8), 63% female | SCS (α = 0.91) | Perceived stress | Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4); (Leung et al., 2010); (α = 0.72) | Health-promoting behavior — eating behavior | Eating behavior: 3-item scale according to the Chinese Dietary Guidelines (Chinese Nutrition Society, 2016); (α = .75) | 40%; low |
Miller & Strachan, 2020 | Cross-sectional | 143 mothers (M = 34 years, SD = 5.24), 100% female | SCS (α = 0.94) | Mother guilt | State Shame and Guilt Scale (SSGS; Marschall et al., 1994); (α = 0.91) | Health-promoting behaviors | The Wellness Behavior Inventory (WBI; Sirois, 2001); (α = 0.67) | 60%; moderate |
Rakhimov et al., 2021 | Cross-sectional | 468 community samples (M = 39 years, SD = 19.4), 59% female | SCS (α = 0.92) | (1) Anxiety about sleep, (2) perceived stress, (3) poor sleep hygiene | Sleep quality | The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI; Buysse et al., 1989); (α = .76) | 73%; moderate | |
Semenchuk et al., 2021; Study 1 | Cross-sectional | 193 university students (M = not reported, SD = not reported) | SCS (α = 0.88) | Proactive health focus | Proactive Health Focus scale (PHF; Terry et al., 2013); (α = 0.88) | Sleep quality | The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI; Buysse et al., 1989); (α = .75) | 60%; moderate |
Semenchuk et al., 2021; Study 2 | Cross-sectional | 193 university students (M = not reported, SD = not reported) | SCS (α = 0.88) | Cognitive emotional regulation | The Cognitive Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (Garnefski et al., 2001); (α = 0.76) | Sleep quality | The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI; Buysse et al., 1989); (α = .75) | 60%; moderate |
Sirois, 2015 | Cross-sectional | 403 community samples and university students (M = 20.37 years, SD = 1.87), 84% female | SCS (α = 0.93) | (1) Positive affect and negative affect, (2) health self-efficacy (as indicative of perceived control over health) | Health behavior intentions | The Wellness Behavior Inventory (WBI; Sirois, 2001; (α = not reported) | 60%; moderate | |
Sirois et al., 2019; Study 1 | Cross-sectional | 134 community samples (M = 30.22, SD = 13.5), 77% female | SCS (α = 0.92) | Negative affect | The negative affect subscales (α = 0.91) of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988) | Bedtime procrastination | Bedtime Procrastination Scale (BPS; Kroese et al., 2014); (α = 0.89) | 47%; low |
Sirois et al., 2019; Study 2 | Cross-sectional | 646 community samples (M = 30.74 years, SD = 12.2), 69% female | SCS-SF (α = 0.86) | (1) Positive and negative affect, (2) cognitive reappraisal | Bedtime procrastination | Bedtime Procrastination Scale (BPS; Kroese et al., 2014); (α = 0.90) | 67%; moderate | |
Vaillancourt & Wasylkiw, 2019 | Cross-sectional | 158 nurses (M = 33 years, SD = 8.64), 58% female | SCS (α = 0.91) | Burnout | Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL-5) scale (Stamm, 2009); (α = .79) | Sleep | Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI; Buysse et al., 1989); (α = .61) | 53%; low |
Wisener & Khoury, 2020; Study 1 | Cross-sectional | 174 university students (M = 20.32 years, SD = 1.35), 85% female | SCS (α = 0.94) | Drinking to cope with anxiety, drinking to cope with depression | 28-item Modified Drinking Motives Questionnaire–Revised (MDM-R; Blackwell & Conrod, 2003) — only the drinking to cope with anxiety (α = 0.80) and drinking to cope with depression (α = 0.95) subscales were used | Alcohol-related problems | 48-item Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ; Read et al., 2006); (α = 0.93) | 60%; moderate |
Wisener & Khoury, 2020; Study 2 | Cross-sectional | 165 university students (M = 20.16 years, SD = 1.21), 82% female | SCS (α = 0.94) | Coping motivated marijuana use | 25-item Marijuana Motives Measure (MMM; Simons et al., 1998) — only the coping subscale was used (α = 0.87) | Marijuana-related problems | 21-item Brief Marijuana Consequences Questionnaire (BMCQ; Simons et al., 2012); (α = 0.87) | 60%; moderate |
Wisener & Khoury, 2021; Study 1 | Cross-sectional | 187 university students (M = 20.34 years, SD = 1.35), 83% female | SCS (α = 0.95) | Difficulties in emotion regulation | 36-item Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004): non-acceptance of emotional responses (α = 0.94), difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior (α = 0.90), impulse control difficulties (α = 0.90), lack of emotional awareness (α = 0.86), limited access to emotion-regulation strategies (α = 0.91), and lack of emotional clarity (α = 0.89). Total score (α = 0.96) | Drinking to cope with depression and anxiety | The 28-item Modified Drinking Motives Questionnaire–Revised (MDM-R; Blackwell & Conrod, 2003). Only the drinking to cope with depression (α = 0.95) and drinking to cope with anxiety (α = 0.78) subscales were only used | 60%; moderate |
Wisener & Khoury, 2021; Study 2 | Cross-sectional | 170 university students (M = 20.17 years, SD = 1.19), 82% female | SCS (α = 0.94) | Difficulties in emotion regulation | 36-item Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004): non-acceptance of emotional responses (α = 0.93), difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior (α = 0.89), impulse control difficulties (α = 0.90), lack of emotional awareness (α = 0.84), limited access to emotion-regulation strategies (α = 0.91), and lack of emotional clarity (α = 0.87). Total score (α = 0.95) | Coping motivated marijuana-use | 53%; low |
Authors | Test of mediation/type of mediation model | Correlations between self-compassion and physical health outcome | Correlations between self-compassion and mediator/s | Correlations between mediator/s and physical health outcome | Findings (significant/non-significant indirect effects) | Indirect effects estimate | 95% BCa Cl (LLCI, ULCI) | Co-variates | Mediation quality rating |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Butz & Stahlberg, 2018; Study 1 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/simple mediation | Sleep quality (ISI) (r = .31***) | Rumination (RRS) (r = − .62***) | (r = − .47***) | SC had a significant indirect effect on sleep quality via rumination | b = 0.33 | (0.102, 0.817) | Not included | 4; moderate |
Butz & Stahlberg, 2018; Study 2 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/simple mediation | Sleep quality (SQI) (r = .35***) | Rumination (RRS) (r = − .31**) | (r = − .59**) | SC had a significant indirect effect on sleep quality via rumination | b = 0.27 | (0.033, 0.585) | Not included | 8; high |
Dunne et al., 2018 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/simple mediation | Physical symptoms (SIC) (r = not reported) | Health-promoting behavior (WBI) (r = not reported) | (r = not reported) | SC had a significant indirect effect on physical symptoms via health-promoting behaviors | b = − 3.16 | (− 6.78, − 0.86)a | Not included | 3; low |
Finlay-Jones et al., 2015 | Sobel’s test, SEM with maximum likelihood estimation | Stress (DASS) (r = − .55***) | Emotion-regulation difficulties (DERS): Non-acceptance (r = − .58***) Goal direction (r = − .47***) Impulse control (r = − .55***) Strategies (r = − .69***) Clarity (r = − .29***) | (r = .51***) (r = .38***) (r = .50***) (r = .60***) (r = .21**) | SC had a significant indirect effect on stress via emotion-regulation difficulties | z′ = 3.83*** | Not included | Age, neuroticism | 4; moderate |
Homan & Sirois, 2017 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/serial mediation | Physical health (RAND-36) (r = .46***) | Perceived stress (PSS) (r = − .80***) Health behaviors (HPLP-II) (r = .49***) | (r = − .60***) (r = .40***) | SC had a significant indirect effect on physical health via (1) perceived stress and (2) health behaviors | btotal = 0.54, SE = 0.09 | (0.36, 0.72) | Sex, age | 4; moderate |
Hu et al., 2018; Study 1 | Bootstrap/simple mediation | Daily sleep (PSQI) (r = − .23***) | Perceived stress (PSS) (r = − .59***) | (r = .34***) | SC had a significant indirect effect on daily sleep via perceived stress | b = 0.07, SE = 0.02 | (− 0.11, − 0.03) | Gender, age | 3; low |
Hwang et al., 2019 | Path analysis/simple mediation | Sleep quality (PSQI) (r = − .35**) | Perceived stress (PSS) (r = − .67**) | (r = .43**) | SC had a significant indirect effect on poor sleep quality via perceived stress | b = − 0.25, SE = 0.05 | Not reported | Demographics, work-related variables | 4; moderate |
Li et al., 2020 | Monte Carlo methods/multilevel mediation | SCtrait and health-promoting behavior (eating behavior; EB) (r = .25*) Between-person SCdaily and EB (r = .23*) Within-person SCdaily and EB (r = .29) | SCtrait and perceived stress (PSS-4) (r = − .61**) Between-person SCdaily and perceived stress (r = − .61*) Within-person SCdaily and Perceived stress (r = − .43**) | HPB and Perceived stress (r = − .41***) | SCtrait and SCdaily (between-person effects) and SCdaily (within-person effects) had significant indirect effects on health-promoting behavior (eating behavior) through perceived stress | Between-person SCtrait = 0.03 Between-person SCdaily = 0.18 Within-person SCdaily = 0.05 | 95% MCCI (.01, .06) 95% MCCI (.05, .34) 95% MCCI (.01, .11) | Time | 3; low |
Miller & Strachan, 2020 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/simple mediation | Health-promoting behaviors (WBI) (r = not reported) | Mother guilt (SSGS) (r = not reported) | (r = not reported) | SC had a significant indirect effect on health-promoting behaviors via mother guilt | b = 0.05, SE = 0.03 | (0.0014, 0.1133)a | Self-esteem, trait guilt | 3; low |
Rakhimov et al., 2021 | SEM with maximum likelihood estimation | Sleep quality (PSQI) (r = − .31***) | Anxiety about sleep (APSQ) (r = − .28***) Perceived stress (PSS) (r = − .53***) Poor sleep hygiene (SHI) (r = − .33***) | (r = .55***) (r = .48***) (r = .41***) | SC had a significant indirect effect on poor sleep quality via anxiety about sleep but not via perceived stress nor poor sleep hygiene 2 sequential mediating pathways were significant: (1) via anxiety about sleep then poor sleep hygiene, and (2) via perceived stress then poor sleep hygiene. For 3 sequential mediators, mediating pathways (3) via anxiety about sleep, perceived stress then poor sleep hygiene was significant | b = − 0.07, p < 0.001 (1)b = − 0.06, p < 0.01 (2)b = − 0.14, p < 0.01 (3)b = − 0.10, p < 0.01 | Not included | Demographics, health, and other predisposing factors of insomnia | 4; moderate |
Semenchuk et al., 2021; Study 1 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/simple mediation | Sleep quality (PSQI) (r = − 0.34***) | Proactive health focus (PHF) (r = .30***) | (r = − .20***) | SC did not have a significant indirect effect on sleep quality via proactive health focus | b = − .19 | (− .57, .10) | Not included | 5; moderate |
Semenchuk et al., 2021; Study 2 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/multiple mediation | Sleep quality (PSQI) (r = − 0.34***) | Cognitive Emotional Regulation (CERQ): Self-blame (r = − .45***) Acceptance (r = − .02) Rumination (r = − .35***) Positive refocusing (r = .32***) Refocus on planning (r = .33***) Positive reappraisal (r = .46***) Putting into perspective (r = .32***) Catastrophizing (r = − .35***) Other blame (r = − .19***) | (r = .08) (r = .11) (r = .16*) (r = − .19***) (r = .15*) (r = − .20) (r = − .10) (r = .17*) (r = − .02) | SC had a significant indirect effect on poor sleep quality via self-blame but not via other cognitive emotion regulation strategies | b = 0.54 | (0.04, 1.04) | Not included | 5; moderate |
Sirois, 2015 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/multiple mediation | Health behavior intentions (WBI) (r = .26**) | Positive affect (PANAS) (r = .43**) Negative affect (PANAS) (r = − .46**) Health self-efficacy (CBI) (r = .40**) | (r = .36**) (r = − .15**) (r = .56**) | SC had a significant indirect effect on health behavior intentions via negative affect and self-efficacy but not via positive affect | Negative affect b = −.10, SE = .05 Health self-efficacy b = .34, SE = .07 Positive affect b = .06, SE = .05 | (− .21, − .01) (.21, .49) (− .02, .16) | Current health behaviors, gender, BMI | 4; moderate |
Sirois et al., 2019; Study 1 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/simple mediation | Bedtime procrastination (BPS) (r = − .28**) | Negative affect (PANAS) (r = − .30**) | (r = .26**) | SC had a significant indirect effect on bedtime procrastination via negative affect | b = − .09, SE = .04 | (− .20, − .02) | Age, sex | 4; moderate |
Sirois et al., 2019; Study 2 | Path analysis/multiple mediation | Bedtime procrastination (BPS) (r = − .31***) | Negative affect (PANAS-X) (r = − .48***) Positive affect PANAS-X (r = .44***) Emotion regulation: cognitive reappraisal (ERQ) (r = .49***) | (r = .28***) (r = − .20***) (r = − .17***) | SC had significant indirect effects on bedtime procrastination via (1) reappraisal and negative affect, and (2) negative affect. No significant indirect effect via positive affect | Reappraisal and negative affect: b = − .01 Negative affect: b = − .06 | (− .025, − .003)b (− .112, − .020)b | Age, sex | 5; moderate |
Vaillancourt & Wasylkiw, 2019 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/simple mediation | Sleep quality (PSQI) (r = .29**) | Burnout (ProQOL-5) (r = − .67**) | (r = − .46**) | SC had a significant indirect effect on sleep quality via burnout | b = 1.73, SE = .35 | (1.06, 2.43)c | Not included | 2; low |
Wisener & Khoury, 2020; Study 1 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/parallel mediation | Alcohol related problems (YAACQ) (r = − 0.25**) | Drinking to cope with anxiety (MDM-R) (r = − 0.41**) Drinking to cope with depression (MDM-R) (r = − 0.25**) | (r = 0.44**) (r = 0.40**) | SC had a significant indirect effect on alcohol-related problems via drinking to cope with anxiety but not via drinking to cope with depression | Drinking to cope with anxiety b = − 0.98 Drinking to cope with depression b = − 0.58 | (− 1.90, − 0.28)c (− 1.72, 0.42)c | Not included | 3; low |
Wisener & Khoury, 2020; Study 2 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/parallel mediation | Marijuana-related problems (BMCQ) (r = − 0.10) | Coping-motivated marijuana use (MMM) (r = − 0.30**) | (r = 0.42**) | SC had a significant indirect effect on marijuana-related problems via coping motivated marijuana use | b = − 0.65 | (− 1.11, − 0.28)c | Not included | 3; low |
Wisener & Khoury, 2021; Study 1 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/parallel mediation | Drinking to cope with depression (MDM-R) (r = − 0.43**) | Emotion-regulation difficulties (DERS): Non-acceptance (r = − 0.59**) Goals (r = − 0.54**) Impulse (r = − 0.58**) Awareness (r = − 0.56**) Strategies (r = − 0.73**) Clarity (r = − 0.54**) | (r = 0.37**) (r = 0.29**) (r = 0.37**) (r = 0.28**) (r = 0.53**) (r = 0.37**) | SC only had a significant indirect effect on drinking to cope with depression via limited access to ER strategies. The other five DERS facets indirect effects were not significant | Strategies b = − 0.41 | (− 0.64, − 0.18)c | Not included | 4; moderate |
Wisener & Khoury, 2021; Study 2 | Bootstrap, PROCESS/parallel mediation | Coping-Motivated Marijuana Use (MMM) (r = − 0.32**) | Emotion-regulation difficulties (DERS): Non-acceptance (r = − 0.50**) Goals (r = − 0.53**) Impulse (r = − 0.54**) Awareness (r = − 0.48**) Strategies (r = − 0.73**) Clarity (r = − 0.52**) | (r = 0.43**) (r = 0.28**) (r = 0.24**) (r = 0.25**) (r = 0.40**) (r = 0.38**) | SC only had a significant indirect effect on coping-motivated marijuana use via non-acceptance of emotional responses. The other five DERS facets indirect effects were not significant | Non-acceptance b = − 0.18 | (− 0.33, − 0.06)c | Not included | 4; moderate |