Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Apr 16;10(4):e0124344.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124344. eCollection 2015.

Standardised Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Healthcare: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of RCTs

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Review

Standardised Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Healthcare: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of RCTs

Rinske A Gotink et al. PLoS One. .
Free PMC article

Retraction in

Abstract

Background: Mindfulness-based therapies are being used in a wide range of common chronic conditions in both treatment and prevention despite lack of consensus about their effectiveness in different patient categories.

Objective: To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness MBSR and MBCT in different patient categories.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of RCTs, using the standardized MBSR or MBCT programs. We used PRISMA guidelines to assess the quality of the included reviews and performed a random effects meta-analysis with main outcome measure Cohen's d. All types of participants were considered.

Results: The search produced 187 reviews: 23 were included, covering 115 unique RCTs and 8,683 unique individuals with various conditions. Compared to wait list control and compared to treatment as usual, MBSR and MBCT significantly improved depressive symptoms (d=0.37; 95%CI 0.28 to 0.45, based on 5 reviews, N=2814), anxiety (d=0.49; 95%CI 0.37 to 0.61, based on 4 reviews, N=2525), stress (d=0.51; 95%CI 0.36 to 0.67, based on 2 reviews, N=1570), quality of life (d=0.39; 95%CI 0.08 to 0.70, based on 2 reviews, N=511) and physical functioning (d=0.27; 95%CI 0.12 to 0.42, based on 3 reviews, N=1015). Limitations include heterogeneity within patient categories, risk of publication bias and limited long-term follow-up in several studies.

Conclusion: The evidence supports the use of MBSR and MBCT to alleviate symptoms, both mental and physical, in the adjunct treatment of cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic pain, depression, anxiety disorders and in prevention in healthy adults and children.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Forest plots showing the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions compared with wait list control or treatment as usual on the outcomes a) Depression, b) Anxiety, c) Stress, d) Quality of life and e) Physical functioning in different populations.
The size of the marker per review indicates the size of the study population. The breadth of the line indicates the 95%CI. All values lower than 0 indicate a significant difference in favour of MBSR/MBCT. Values between 0 and -0.2 indicate negligible effect; between -0.2 and -0.5 small effect; between -0.5 and -0.8 medium effect and lower than -0.8 a large effect.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 88 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. WHO (2013) Chronic diseases. WHO.
    1. Gunaratana H (1993) Mindfulness in plain English. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
    1. Kapleau P (2000) The three pillars of Zen: teaching, practice, and enlightenment. New York: Anchor Books.
    1. Kabat-Zinn J, Lipworth L, Burney R (1985) The clinical use of mindfulness meditation for the self-regulation of chronic pain. J Behav Med 8: 163–190. - PubMed
    1. Brown KW, Ryan RM (2003) The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 84: 822–848. - PubMed

Grant support

There was no sponsor involvement in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Funding for this study was provided by an internal Erasmus MC grant.
Feedback