Feasibility and Outcomes of an Internet-Based Mindfulness Training Program: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interventions based on meditation and mindfulness techniques have been shown to reduce stress and increase psychological well-being in a wide variety of populations. Self-administrated Internet-based mindfulness training programs have the potential to be a convenient, cost-effective, easily disseminated, and accessible alternative to group-based programs. OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled pilot trial with 90 university students in Stockholm, Sweden, explored the feasibility, usability, acceptability, and outcomes of an 8-week Internet-based mindfulness training program. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention (n=46) or an active control condition (n=44). Intervention participants were invited to an Internet-based 8-week mindfulness program, and control participants were invited to an Internet-based 4-week expressive writing program. The programs were automated apart from weekly reminders via email. Main outcomes in pre- and postassessments were psychological well-being and depression symptoms. To assess the participant's experiences, those completing the full programs were asked to fill out an assessment questionnaire and 8 of the participants were interviewed using a semistructured interview guide. Descriptive and inferential statistics, as well as content analysis, were performed. RESULTS: In the mindfulness program, 28 out of 46 students (60%) completed the first week and 18 out of 46 (39%) completed the full program. In the expressive writing program, 35 out of 44 students (80%) completed the first week and 31 out of 44 (70%) completed the full program. There was no statistically significantly stronger intervention effect for the mindfulness intervention compared to the active control intervention. Those completing the mindfulness group reported high satisfaction with the program. Most of those interviewed were satisfied with the layout and technique and with the support provided by the study coordinators. More frequent contact with study coordinators was suggested as a way to improve program adherence and completion. Most participants considered the program to be meaningful and helpful but also challenging. The flexibility in performing the exercises at a suitable time and place was appreciated. A major difficulty was, however, finding enough time to practice. CONCLUSIONS: The program was usable, acceptable, and showed potential for increasing psychological well-being for those completing it. However, additional modification of the program might be needed to increase retention and compliance. CLINICALTRIAL: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02062762; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0206276 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6j9I5SGJ4).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".