TAP reading note: "Give me a break!" A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of micro-breaks for increasing well-being and performance
Micro-breaks of up to ten minutes showed small average benefits for vigour and fatigue: vigour d=.36 (95% CI .16–.55), fatigue improvement d=.35 (.19–.50). The primary performance estimate, d=.16 (−.04 to .37), was not significant; subjective improvement does not establish better work performance.
Updated 2026-10-29 · Archived
The scientific content and references belong to this edition. The complete captured record is available to download below; later corrections appear in subsequent editions. Website design and interactive software are not archived here.
What the study found
Micro-breaks of up to ten minutes showed small average benefits for vigour and fatigue: vigour d=.36 (95% CI .16–.55), fatigue improvement d=.35 (.19–.50). The primary performance estimate, d=.16 (−.04 to .37), was not significant; subjective improvement does not establish better work performance.
Scope & limitations
19 reports, 22 independent samples and 2,335 healthy employees or students, synthesised separately by outcome.
Activities, tasks and designs varied; inclusion required English, a specified publication period and accessible full text. Performance showed a publication-bias signal, and sensitivity estimates do not replace the main analysis. Its P value is .17 in the text and .116 in Table 3; both are nonsignificant, but the exact value remains unresolved.
Population & sample
19 reports, 22 independent samples and 2,335 healthy employees or students, synthesised separately by outcome.
Exposure or intervention
Experimental or quasi-experimental comparisons of micro-breaks lasting ≤10 minutes.
Outcomes
Vigour, fatigue and performance, with 9, 9 and 15 effect groups respectively.
Time frame
Brief breaks and short-term task outcomes; no established long-term workplace-policy effect.
Research funding
Andrei Rusu reported Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, CNCS–UEFISCDI support, project PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2019-2032.
Research conflicts of interest
The authors declared no competing interests.
Reading scope
Full-text eligibility, risk-of-bias assessment, Table 3, publication bias and discussion. Individual-study bias and performance-model output remain to be checked.
References
Publication record
TAP-RDN-0023 · v0.3 · English
The Allostasis Project is founded and supported by Resilio.
Record for v0.3 · Updated
Editorial responsibility: TAP Editorial Team
Editorial note
Under the editorial responsibility of the TAP Editorial Team, this publication used AI assistance for content organization and editing.
Download detailed editorial record (JSON) ↓
How responsibilities and review are recorded ↗© The Allostasis Project. All rights reserved. Reproduction or adaptation requires separate permission, subject to applicable legal exceptions.