Feasibility and Efficacy of a Novel Mindfulness App Used With Matcha Green Tea in Generally Healthy Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mindfulness practices, such as breathing meditation (BM), reduce stress and enhance mood. One such practice is mindful eating, where a practitioner focuses on the five senses while eating or drinking. A novel set of prototypes has been developed, incorporating principles of mindful eating. These prototypes include matcha green tea and a mobile app that provides audio guidance for meditation during the preparation and consumption of the beverage (hereafter referred to as guided tea meditation [GTM]). OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the feasibility and efficacy of GTM, evaluating meditation time, frequency, and prototype acceptability over 8 weeks, alongside changes in stress and mood. Additionally, other benefits of GTM were explored. METHODS: A comparator group was established in which participants performed traditional BM without an app or audio guide (active control). This unblinded randomized controlled trial involved 100 healthy American volunteers (n=49 GTM, n=51 BM). During the 8-week study period, participants were encouraged to perform either GTM or BM for 10 minutes daily. The meditation activity was self-reported the following day. Only the GTM group assessed the prototype acceptability. The Perceived Stress Scale-10 was used to measure stress levels, while the Two-Dimensional Mood Scale was used to evaluate mood changes. Other meditation benefits were explored using a questionnaire. All questionnaires were presented and completed via an app. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: No significant between-group differences were found in total meditation time (P=.15) or frequency (P=.36). However, the weekly time and frequency of the GTM group remained above 50 minutes per week and 4 days per week, respectively. Over half of the GTM participants (≥28/49, ≥57%) accepted the prototype. The GTM group exhibited significant stress reductions at weeks 4 and 8 (both P<.001), similar to the BM group. Improvements in mood metrics were observed after a single GTM session on days 1 and 56, similar to the BM group. Moreover, increases in premeditation scores for relaxed and calm from day 1 to day 56 were significantly higher for the GTM group (P=.04 and .048, respectively). The majority of participants (≥25/49, ≥51%) assigned to GTM experienced positive changes in happiness, time management, quality of life, relationships, sleep, and work performance as they continued meditating. However, no significant between-group differences were found in these exploratory outcomes (P>.08). CONCLUSIONS: We believe that GTM exhibits good feasibility. Meanwhile, GTM reduced stress, improved mood, and let the practitioners feel other benefits, similar to BM. Long-term practitioners of GTM may even feel more relaxed and calmer in the state of premeditation than those who practice BM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05832645; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05832645.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".