Do You Mind? Examining the Impact of Psychoeducation Specificity on Perceptions of Mindfulness-Based Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) cultivate the capacity for mindfulness, defined as nonjudgmental acceptance and awareness of present-moment experience. Mindfulness has been associated with a host of benefits for users, such as improved indices of mental well-being. We examined public perceptions of acceptability (i.e., how appropriate the treatment is for a given problem) and credibility (i.e., how logical and convincing a treatment seems) of MBPs as a form of mental health intervention. The main objective of this study was to examine whether higher specificity of psychoeducational content improved perceptions of the acceptability and credibility of MBPs. METHODS: = 188; female% = 39.4) were recruited online and randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In one condition, participants received balanced and evidence-based psychoeducation specific to MBPs for mental health. In the other condition, participants received general information about psychological treatments for mental health. Acceptability and credibility perceptions were measured by questionnaires across time (pre-and post-psychoeducation) and across specificity conditions (specific vs. general psychoeducation). RESULTS: Participants randomized to the general, but not the specific, psychoeducation-endorsed higher scores of acceptability of MBPs post-psychoeducation. Further, participants endorsed higher scores of MBP credibility post-psychoeducation, regardless of the specificity of psychoeducation provided. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of the acceptability of MBPs were improved following exposure to general psychoeducation, and perceptions of the credibility of MBPs were improved following psychoeducation, regardless of specificity. Examining public perceptions of MBPs is important for informing strategies to support access to and use of MBPs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".