Research paper · RP41

The India Evidence Gap

Indian workplaces buy wellbeing programmes the way a start-up buys ads: quickly, hopefully, and often without a randomised receipt. Seven eligible Indian randomised trials of non-clinical emotional-wellbeing programmes were found; four could be pooled, giving a random-effects Hedges g of 0.89 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) on stress or wellbeing. Heterogeneity was modest (I² = 20%; τ² = 0.016). The 95% prediction interval was 0.52 to 1.26. Certainty is low. Every trial was open-label. Most used a wait-list. Yoga and breath practices supplied five of the seven trials. One rural trial tested character-strengths coaching (g = 0.54). Zero eligible worker trials tested a mindfulness-only programme, a gratitude programme, or a WhatsApp-first or AI-coach programme. Only one trial delivered the programme in Hindi. Resilience as a primary outcome is almost empty. Prior maps already said this. Pandya and colleagues (2022) found thirty workplace records and almost no trials. A 2025 review of thirty-eight workplace mental-health papers still did not pool effects. This review asks a plainer question: how many Indian randomised trials exist, what do they pool to, and where are the holes? Adults in India, non-clinical samples, psychological or behavioural wellbeing programmes, any control, outcomes of wellbeing, stress or resilience, years 2000–2026. Searches covered PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus (via published reviews), Web of Science equivalents, CTRI, ClinicalTrials.gov and OSF. Random-effects REML, Hedges g, RoB 2, GRADE. The number is not zero. It is seven. That is a pilot batch, not a production run. An Indian workplace programme can cite a large average effect and still be flying on instruments built for a different language, a different channel, and a different follow-up window.