Examining the Effects of a Brief, Fully Self-Guided Mindfulness Ecological Momentary Intervention on Empathy and Theory-of-Mind for Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The utility of brief mindfulness ecological momentary interventions (EMIs) to improve empathy and theory-of-mind has been underinvestigated, particularly in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). OBJECTIVE: In this randomized controlled trial, we aimed to examine the efficacy of a 14-day, fully self-guided, mindfulness EMI on the empathy and theory-of-mind domains for GAD. METHODS: Adults (aged ≥18 y) diagnosed with GAD were randomized to a mindfulness EMI (68/110, 61.8%) or self-monitoring app (42/110, 38.2%) arm. They completed the Interpersonal Reactivity Index self-report empathy measure and theory-of-mind test (Bell-Lysaker Emotion Recognition Task) at prerandomization, postintervention, and 1-month follow-up (1MFU) time points. Hierarchical linear modeling was conducted with the intent-to-treat principle to determine prerandomization to postintervention (pre-post intervention) and prerandomization to 1MFU (pre-1MFU) changes, comparing the mindfulness EMI to self-monitoring. RESULTS: Observed effects were generally stronger from pre-1MFU than from pre-post intervention time points. From pre-post intervention time points, the mindfulness EMI was more efficacious than the self-monitoring app on fantasy (the ability to imagine being in others' shoes; between-intervention effect size: Cohen d=0.26, P=.007; within-intervention effect size: Cohen d=0.22, P=.02 for the mindfulness EMI and Cohen d=-0.16, P=.10 for the self-monitoring app). From pre-1MFU time points, the mindfulness EMI, but not the self-monitoring app, improved theory-of-mind (a window into others' thoughts and intentions through abstract, propositional knowledge about their mental states, encompassing the ability to decipher social cues) and the fantasy, personal distress (stress when witnessing others' negative experiences), and perspective-taking (understanding others' perspective) empathy domains. The effect sizes were small to moderate (Cohen d=0.15-0.36; P<.001 to P=.01) for significant between-intervention effects from pre-1MFU time points. Furthermore, the within-intervention effect sizes for these significant outcomes were stronger for the mindfulness EMI (Cohen d=0.30-0.43; P<.001 to P=.03) than the self-monitoring app (Cohen d=-0.12 to 0.21; P=.001 to P>.99) from pre-1MFU time points. No between-intervention and within-intervention effects on empathic concern (feeling affection, compassion, and care when observing others in distress, primarily attending to their emotional well-being) were observed from pre-post intervention and pre-1MFU time points. CONCLUSIONS: The brief mindfulness EMI improved specific domains of empathy (eg, fantasy, personal distress, and perspective-taking) and theory-of-mind with small to moderate effect sizes in persons with GAD. Higher-intensity, self-guided or coach-facilitated, multicomponent mindfulness EMIs targeting the optimization of social relationships are likely necessary to improve the empathic concern domain in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04846777; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04846777.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".