Principles for a Responsible Integration of Mindfulness in Individual Therapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) like mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) teach mindfulness in a group-based format. Empirical research has shown that many therapists working in individual therapy integrate mindfulness practices (e.g., body scan, sitting meditation) into their treatments. However, research on this topic is in its infancy. The purpose of this paper is to present recommendations for a responsible use of mindfulness in individual therapy. Methods Informed by a literature review, an expert group developed guidelines for a responsible use of mindfulness in individual therapy. Results Recommendations for the following issues were developed: (a) different types of integration; (b) diagnoses/clinical problems for which integration of mindfulness in individual therapy could be useful; (c) qualification of therapists; (d) case formulation; (e) the inquiry process; (f) types and optimal duration of mindfulness practices in individual therapy; (g) managing difficult experiences; (h) integration of mindfulness into individual therapy training programs. Finally, we formulate important topics for research on the integration of mindfulness into individual therapy. Conclusions By formulating recommendations for the most important issues of the integration of mindfulness into individual therapy, we want to stimulate the discussion on a responsible use of mindfulness in this setting. Since research on this topic is scarce, our recommendations can only be tentative.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.014 | 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 it