Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing mindfulness-based programs for mental health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) are widely used to prevent mental ill health. Evidence suggests beneficial average effects but wide variability. We aimed to confirm the effect of MBPs and to understand whether and how baseline distress, gender, age, education, and dispositional mindfulness modify the effect of MBPs on distress among adults in non-clinical settings. We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42020200117). Databases were searched in December 2020 for randomized controlled trials satisfying a quality threshold and comparing in-person, expert-defined MBPs with passive-control groups. Two researchers independently selected, extracted and appraised trials using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. IPD of eligible trials were sought from authors. The primary outcome was psychological distress (unpleasant mental or emotional experiences including anxiety and depression) at 1 to 6 months after program completion. Data were checked and imputed if missing. Pairwise, random-effects, two-stage IPD meta-analyses were conducted. Effect modification analyses followed a within-studies approach. Stakeholders were involved throughout this study. Fifteen trials were eligible; 13 trialists shared IPD (2,371 participants representing 8 countries. In comparison with passive-control groups, MBPs reduced average distress between 1 and 6 months post-intervention with a small to moderate effect size (standardized mean difference, −0.32; 95% confidence interval, −0.41 to −0.24; P < 0.001; no heterogeneity). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses and similar for the other timepoint ranges. Confidence in the primary outcome result is high. We found no clear indication that this effect is modified by the pre-specified candidates. Group-based teacher-led MBPs generally reduce psychological distress among volunteering community adults. More research is needed to identify sources of variability in outcomes at an individual level.
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 | 0.045 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.032 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".