eTable 5. Results of sensitivity analyses.

	i	r	95% CI	p	I2
Mean effect size	57	0.432	[0.385; 0.477]	<0.001	89.6%
Without unreliable instruments and insufficient reliability information	27	0.449	[0.369; 0.522]	<0.001	94.0%
Without incomplete reporting	48	0.429	[0.376; 0.479]	<0.001	91.2%
Without positive outliers*1	51	0.403	[0.357; 0.446]	<0.001	83.1%
Without negative outliers*2	51	0.466	[0.430; 0.501]	<0.001	79.1%
Measure of mental quality of life	20	0.391	[0.311; 0.466]	<0.001	79.9%
Measure of mental distress	46	0.449	[0.396; 0.499]	<0.001	90.7%
Measure of depression	40	0.471	[0.418; 0.520]	<0.001	90.0%
Measure of anxiety	28	0.429	[0.374; 0.481]	<0.001	85.4%
Hunter & Schmidt’s integration method (e65)	57	0.440	[0.139; 0.742]	<0.001	90.3%
Without prospective associations*3	56	0.433	[0.385; 0.478]	<0.001	89.8%

*¹ Amler et al. 2015 (e1); Cohen et al. 2014 (e5); Esteve & Ramírez-Maestre 2013 (1) (e8); Jaenichen et al. 2012 (e16); Keil et al. 2017 (e20); Wallhäuser-Franke et al. 2014 (e50)

*² Bathke 2011 (e2); Esteve & Ramírez-Maestre 2013 (3) (e8); García-Maroto Fernández 2015 (e11); Gotay et al. 2007 (e12); Hennig 2011 (e14); Ramírez-Maestre et al. 2017 (e40)

*³ Erim et al. 2015 (e7)

i = number of samples; I² = measure of heterogeneity; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval