Therapists who practice mindfulness meditation : implications for therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past decade the healing potential of mindfulness and its practice has gained widespread recognition across various health disciplines and institutions, especially mental health. Past and current research on mindfulness interventions have focused almost exclusively on the beneficial effects for clients. However, there is a serious shortage of research on how mindfulness practice influences therapists and their work. The current study looked specifically at how the influence of mindfulness meditation (MM) was experienced by therapists in the context of their work. An interpretive description methodology was used to guide the research process. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with six therapists who practiced MM regularly. A thematic analysis of interview transcripts highlighted commonalities and differences among participants’ perceptions of the influence of MM on their work. Eleven themes emerged from the data analysis. Thematic findings were considered in relation to key issues in psychotherapy, master therapist traits and other contemporary qualitative research addressing the influence of MM on practitioners. The results are discussed with an emphasis on the practical implications for future research, therapist training and clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".