Mindfulness-based interventions for psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Simon B Goldberg, Raymond P Tucker, Preston A Greene, Richard J Davidson, Bruce E Wampold, David J Kearney, Tracy L Simpson, Simon B Goldberg, Raymond P Tucker, Preston A Greene, Richard J Davidson, Bruce E Wampold, David J Kearney, Tracy L Simpson

Abstract

Despite widespread scientific and popular interest in mindfulness-based interventions, questions regarding the empirical status of these treatments remain. We sought to examine the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for clinical populations on disorder-specific symptoms. To address the question of relative efficacy, we coded the strength of the comparison group into five categories: no treatment, minimal treatment, non-specific active control, specific active control, and evidence-based treatment. A total of 142 non-overlapping samples and 12,005 participants were included. At post-treatment, mindfulness-based interventions were superior to no treatment (d=0.55), minimal treatment (d=0.37), non-specific active controls (d=0.35), and specific active controls (d=0.23). Mindfulness conditions did not differ from evidence-based treatments (d=-0.004). At follow-up, mindfulness-based interventions were superior to no treatment conditions (d=0.50), non-specific active controls (d=0.52), and specific active controls (d=0.29). Mindfulness conditions did not differ from minimal treatment conditions (d=0.38) and evidence-based treatments (d=0.09). Effects on specific disorder subgroups showed the most consistent evidence in support of mindfulness for depression, pain conditions, smoking, and addictive disorders. Results support the notion that mindfulness-based interventions hold promise as evidence-based treatments.

Keywords: Evidence-based treatments; Meditation; Meta-analysis; Mindfulness; Psychiatric disorders; Relative efficacy.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interests

RD is the founder, president, and serves on the board of directors for the non-profit organization, Healthy Minds Innovations, Inc. In addition, RD serves on the board of directors for the Mind and Life Institute.

Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA Flow Diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
Post-treatment effects by comparison group type. k = number of disorder-specific comparisons; Tx n = mindfulness condition sample size; Cont n = comparison group sample size (note that total n is larger than the full sample size as some samples are represented in multiple comparisons); d = Cohen’s d effect size; Q = Q-statistic; Qp = p-value for Q-statistic; I2 = heterogeneity; kimp = number of imputed studies based on trim-and-fill analyses; dadj = adjusted d based on trim-and-fill analyses; No tx = no treatment; Min tx = minimal treatment; Non-spec = non-specific active control condition; Spec = Specific active control condition; EBT = evidence-based treatment.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Post-treatment effects on disorder-specific symptoms by comparison group and disorder. Comp = comparison group; k = number of disorder-specific comparisons; Tx n = mindfulness condition sample size; Cont n = comparison group sample size (note that total n is larger than the full sample size as some samples are represented in multiple comparisons); d = Cohen’s d effect size; Q = Q-statistic; Qp = p-value for Q-statistic; I2 = heterogeneity; kimp = number of imputed studies based on trim-and-fill analyses; dadj = adjusted d based on trim-and-fill analyses; No tx = no treatment; Min tx = minimal treatment; Non-spec = non-specific active control condition; Spec = Specific active control condition; EBT = evidence-based treatment.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Follow-up effects by comparison type. k = number of disorder-specific comparisons; Tx n = mindfulness condition sample size; Cont n = comparison group sample size (note that total n is larger than the full sample size as some samples are represented in multiple comparisons); d = Cohen’s d effect size; Q = Q-statistic; Qp = p-value for Q-statistic; I2 = heterogeneity; kimp = number of imputed studies based on trim-and-fill analyses; dadj = adjusted d based on trim-and-fill analyses; No tx = no treatment; Min tx = minimal treatment; Non-spec = non-specific active control condition; Spec = Specific active control condition; EBT = evidence-based treatment.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Follow-up effects by comparison type and disorder. Comp = comparison group; k = number of disorder-specific comparisons; Tx n = mindfulness condition sample size; Cont n = comparison group sample size (note that total n is larger than the full sample size as some samples are represented in multiple comparisons); d = Cohen’s d effect size; Q = Q-statistic; Qp = p-value for Q-statistic; I2 = heterogeneity; kimp = number of imputed studies based on trim-and-fill analyses; dadj = adjusted d based on trim-and- fill analyses; No tx = no treatment; Min tx = minimal treatment; Non-spec = non-specific active control condition; Spec = Specific active control condition; EBT = evidence-based treatment.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi