Testing the Efficacy of a Brief, Self-Guided Mindfulness Ecological Momentary Intervention on Emotion Regulation and Self-Compassion in Social Anxiety Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Theories propose that brief, mobile, self-guided mindfulness ecological momentary interventions (MEMIs) could enhance emotion regulation (ER) and self-compassion. Such changes are posited to be mechanisms of change. However, rigorous tests of these theories have not been conducted. OBJECTIVE: In this assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial, we aimed to test these theories in social anxiety disorder (SAD). METHODS: Participants with SAD (defined as having a prerandomization cut-off score ≥20 on the Social Phobia Inventory self-report) were randomized to a 14-day fully self-guided MEMI (96/191, 50.3%) or self-monitoring app (95/191, 49.7%) arm. They completed web-based self-reports of 6 clinical outcome measures at prerandomization, 15-day postintervention (administered the day after the intervention ended), and 1-month follow-up time points. ER and self-compassion were assessed at preintervention and 7-day midintervention time points. Multilevel modeling determined the efficacy of MEMI on ER and self-compassion domains from pretrial to midintervention time points. Bootstrapped parallel multilevel mediation analysis examined the mediating role of pretrial to midintervention ER and self-compassion domains on the efficacy of MEMI on 6 clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Participants demonstrated strong compliance, with 78% (149/191) engaging in at least 80% of the MEMI and self-monitoring prompts. MEMI was more efficacious than the self-monitoring app in decreasing ER goal-directed behavior difficulties (between-group Cohen d=-0.24) and lack of emotional clarity (Cohen d=0.16) and increasing self-compassion social connectedness (Cohen d=0.19), nonidentification with emotions (Cohen d=0.16), and self-kindness (Cohen d=0.19) from pretrial to midintervention time points. The within-group effect sizes from pretrial to midintervention were larger in the MEMI arm than in the self-monitoring app arm (ER goal-directed behavior difficulties: Cohen d=-0.73 vs -0.29, lack of emotional clarity: Cohen d=-0.39 vs -0.21, self-compassion domains of social connectedness: Cohen d=0.45 vs 0.19, nonidentification with emotions: Cohen d=0.63 vs 0.48, and self-kindness: Cohen d=0.36 vs 0.10). Self-monitoring, but not MEMI, alleviated ER emotional awareness issues (between-group Cohen d=0.11 and within-group: Cohen d=-0.29 vs -0.13) and reduced self-compassion acknowledging shared human struggles (between-group Cohen d=0.26 and within-group: Cohen d=-0.23 vs 0.13). No ER and self-compassion domains were mediators of the effect of MEMI on SAD symptoms (P=.07-<.99), generalized anxiety symptoms (P=.16-.98), depression severity (P=.20-.94), repetitive negative thinking (P=.12-.96), and trait mindfulness (P=.18-.99) from pretrial to postintervention time points. Similar nonsignificant mediation effects emerged for all of these clinical outcomes from pretrial to 1-month follow-up time points (P=.11-.98). CONCLUSIONS: Brief, fully self-guided, mobile MEMIs efficaciously increased specific self-compassion domains and decreased ER difficulties associated with goal pursuit and clarity of emotions from pretrial to midintervention time points. Higher-intensity MEMIs may be required to pinpoint the specific change mechanisms in ER and self-compassion domains of SAD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries; osf.io/m3kxz https://osf.io/m3kxz.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".