-
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Apr 2020Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Cancer negatively affects individuals' quality of life and overall health. Mindfulness-based... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Cancer negatively affects individuals' quality of life and overall health. Mindfulness-based interventions appear to be promising in the reduction of cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms. This review aimed to systematically summarize and synthesize the best available evidence concerning the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on anxiety, depression, quality of life, fatigue, stress, posttraumatic growth, and mindfulness among adult cancer patients and survivors.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted across 10 electronic databases. Only randomized controlled trials were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and performed quality assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Meta-analyses were conducted using review manager software, and standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to determine intervention effects. Subgroup analyses were performed for cancer type, gender, and interventions. Heterogeneity was examined using the Chi and I statistics.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine studies were included with a total of 3476 participants. Those who received mindfulness-based interventions reported significantly lower anxiety, depression, fatigue, and stress and greater quality of life, posttraumatic growth, and mindfulness than respondents in control groups. Mindfulness-based art therapy (MBAT) produced the strongest intervention effect on anxiety (SMD = - 2.48) and depression (SMD = - 2.21), followed by mindfulness-based stress reduction program (MBSR) and mindfulness-based care recovery (MBCR). The interventions were effective across different cancer types.
CONCLUSION
Mindfulness-based interventions can be used as an adjuvant therapy for the management of cancer-related symptoms among cancer patients and survivors.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Mindfulness; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31834518
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-05219-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially traumatising event, challenging life circumstances, a critical life transition phase, or physical illness. Healthcare professionals, such as nurses, physicians, psychologists and social workers, are exposed to various work-related stressors (e.g. patient care, time pressure, administration) and are at increased risk of developing mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals, that is, healthcare staff delivering direct medical care (e.g. nurses, physicians, hospital personnel) and allied healthcare staff (e.g. social workers, psychologists).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults aged 18 years and older who are employed as healthcare professionals, comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, wait-list, usual care, active or attention control. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 44 RCTs (high-income countries: 36). Thirty-nine studies solely focused on healthcare professionals (6892 participants), including both healthcare staff delivering direct medical care and allied healthcare staff. Four studies investigated mixed samples (1000 participants) with healthcare professionals and participants working outside of the healthcare sector, and one study evaluated training for emergency personnel in general population volunteers (82 participants). The included studies were mainly conducted in a hospital setting and included physicians, nurses and different hospital personnel (37/44 studies). Participants mainly included women (68%) from young to middle adulthood (mean age range: 27 to 52.4 years). Most studies investigated group interventions (30 studies) of high training intensity (18 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (29 studies). Of the included studies, 19 compared a resilience training based on combined theoretical foundation (e.g. mindfulness and cognitive-behavioural therapy) versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list). The studies were funded by different sources (e.g. hospitals, universities), or a combination of different sources. Fifteen studies did not specify the source of their funding, and one study received no funding support. Risk of bias was high or unclear for most studies in performance, detection, and attrition bias domains. At post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare professionals receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.65; 12 studies, 690 participants), lower levels of depression (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; 14 studies, 788 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.15; 17 studies, 997 participants). There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on anxiety (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.23; 5 studies, 231 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 13 studies, 1494 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Effect sizes were small except for resilience and stress reduction (moderate). Data on adverse effects were available for three studies, with none reporting any adverse effects occurring during the study (very-low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For healthcare professionals, there is very-low certainty evidence that, compared to control, resilience training may result in higher levels of resilience, lower levels of depression, stress or stress perception, and higher levels of certain resilience factors at post-intervention. The paucity of medium- or long-term data, heterogeneous interventions and restricted geographical distribution limit the generalisability of our results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. The findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare professionals, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is a clear need for high-quality replications and improved study designs.
Topics: Adult; Allied Health Personnel; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Female; Health Personnel; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mindfulness; Occupational Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resilience, Psychological; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 32627860
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012527.pub2 -
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and... Apr 2021Stimuli that promote eating in the absence of the physiological need for food are pervasive and can facilitate excessive energy intake. The practices of mindful eating...
BACKGROUND
Stimuli that promote eating in the absence of the physiological need for food are pervasive and can facilitate excessive energy intake. The practices of mindful eating (ME) and intuitive eating (IE) have been developed to minimize external drivers of energy intake by helping individuals emphasize the sensory properties of foods and internal indicators of hunger and fullness.
OBJECTIVE
To enhance understanding about the effect of ME and IE interventions on dietary intake, this systematic review included randomized trials of ME and IE interventions that examined dietary intake, defined as energy intake or diet quality, in adults of varying weight status without a diagnosis of an eating disorder.
METHODS
The selection of literature followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review process, in which PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and PsycINFO databases were searched for studies published between January 1980 and November 2019. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: randomized trial design in which 1 arm was an intervention with an ME or IE component and there was at least 1 control or active comparison arm; enrolled participants were of a healthy weight or with overweight or obesity and reported not having an eating disorder (ie, anorexia, bulimia nervosa, or binge eating disorder) or other health conditions in which dietary restrictions were applied; were at least 18 years of age; and outcomes of energy intake or diet quality were reported at baseline and post intervention. The modified Downs and Black checklist was used to assess risk of bias for each study that met inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies, including 8 investigating ME interventions and 5 investigating IE interventions, represented in 14 articles, were included in the review. Seven of the 9 articles reporting on energy intake did not find significant group differences. Eight of the 12 articles reporting on diet quality did not find significant group differences. The mean bias assessment score was 13.6 out of 28, indicating poor quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Little evidence suggests that ME and IE interventions influence energy intake or diet quality. To draw strong conclusions about the effect of ME and IE on dietary intake, future research using study designs of high rigor are needed.
Topics: Diet; Eating; Energy Intake; Female; Humans; Male; Mindfulness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33279464
DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2020.10.019 -
Explore (New York, N.Y.) 2017High levels of stress have been identified in medical students and increasingly in other health profession student population groups. As stress can affect psychological... (Review)
Review
Mindfulness Training for Health Profession Students-The Effect of Mindfulness Training on Psychological Well-Being, Learning and Clinical Performance of Health Professional Students: A Systematic Review of Randomized and Non-randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
High levels of stress have been identified in medical students and increasingly in other health profession student population groups. As stress can affect psychological well-being and interfere with learning and clinical performance, there is a clear argument for universities to include health professional student well-being as an outcome in core curriculum. Mindfulness training is a potential construct to manage stress and enhance academic success.
OBJECTIVES
The aims of this systematic review were to assess the effectiveness of mindfulness training in medical and other health professional student population groups and to compare the effectiveness of the different mindfulness-based programs.
DATA SOURCES
A literature search was completed using The Cochrane library, Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Psychinfo, and ERIC (proquest) electronic databases from inception to June 2016. Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials were included. Of the potential 5355 articles, 19 met the inclusion criteria.
STUDY SELECTION PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS
Studies focused on medical (n = 10), nursing (n = 4), social work (n = 1), psychology (n = 1), and medical plus other health (n = 3) students. Interventions were based on mindfulness.
DATA EXTRACTION
The 19 studies included 1815 participants. Meta-analysis was performed evaluating the effect of mindfulness training on mindfulness, anxiety, depression, stress, mood, self-efficacy, and empathy. The effect of mindfulness on academic performance was discussed.
DATA SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Mindfulness-based interventions decrease stress, anxiety, and depression and improve mindfulness, mood, self-efficacy, and empathy in health profession students. Due to the range of presentation options, mindfulness training can be relatively easily adapted and integrated into health professional training programs.
Topics: Anxiety; Clinical Competence; Curriculum; Depression; Empathy; Health Occupations; Humans; Learning; Meditation; Mindfulness; Self Efficacy; Stress, Psychological; Students, Health Occupations; Students, Medical
PubMed: 27889445
DOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2016.10.002 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2021: Hypertension is among the most important risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, which are considered high mortality risk medical conditions. To date, several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
: Hypertension is among the most important risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, which are considered high mortality risk medical conditions. To date, several studies have reported positive effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) interventions on physical and psychological well-being in other medical conditions, but no meta-analysis on MBSR programs for hypertension has been conducted. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of MBSR programs for hypertension. : A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examining the effects of MBSR on systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), anxiety, depression, and perceived stress in people with hypertension or pre-hypertension was conducted. The PubMed/MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched in November 2020 to identify relevant studies. : Six studies were included. The comparison of MBSR versus control conditions on diastolic BP was associated with a statistically significant mean effect size favoring MBSR over control conditions ( = -2.029; 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.676 to -0.383, = 0.016, = 6; 22 effect sizes overall), without evidence of heterogeneity ( = 0.000%). The comparison of MBSR versus control conditions on systolic BP was associated with a mean effect size which was statistically significant only at a marginal level ( = -3.894; 95% CI: -7.736-0.053, = 0.047, = 6; 22 effect sizes overall), without evidence of high heterogeneity ( = 20.772%). The higher the proportion of participants on antihypertensive medications was, the larger the effects of MBSR were on systolic BP ( = -0.750, = -2.73, = 0.003). : MBSR seems to be a promising intervention, particularly effective on the reduction of diastolic BP. More well-conducted trials are required.
Topics: Anxiety; Blood Pressure; Humans; Hypertension; Mindfulness; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 33799828
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18062882 -
Neuropsychology Review Sep 2022Mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) are increasingly utilized to improve mental health. Interest in the putative effects of MBPs on cognitive function is also growing.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) are increasingly utilized to improve mental health. Interest in the putative effects of MBPs on cognitive function is also growing. This is the first meta-analysis of objective cognitive outcomes across multiple domains from randomized MBP studies of adults. Seven databases were systematically searched to January 2020. Fifty-six unique studies (n = 2,931) were included, of which 45 (n = 2,238) were synthesized using robust variance estimation meta-analysis. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses evaluated moderators. Pooling data across cognitive domains, the summary effect size for all studies favored MBPs over comparators and was small in magnitude (g = 0.15; [0.05, 0.24]). Across subgroup analyses of individual cognitive domains/subdomains, MBPs outperformed comparators for executive function (g = 0.15; [0.02, 0.27]) and working memory outcomes (g = 0.23; [0.11, 0.36]) only. Subgroup analyses identified significant effects for studies of non-clinical samples, as well as for adults aged over 60. Across all studies, MBPs outperformed inactive, but not active comparators. Limitations include the primarily unclear within-study risk of bias (only a minority of studies were considered low risk), and that statistical constraints rendered some p-values unreliable. Together, results partially corroborate the hypothesized link between mindfulness practices and cognitive performance. This review was registered with PROSPERO [CRD42018100904].
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cognition; Executive Function; Humans; Memory, Short-Term; Middle Aged; Mindfulness
PubMed: 34350544
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-021-09519-y -
BMJ Open Jun 2018To synthesise the available evidence on interventions designed to improve individual resilience. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise the available evidence on interventions designed to improve individual resilience.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Ovid Medline, Ovid EMBASE, PsycINFO, Ovid Cochrane and WHO Clinical Trials Registry in order to identify any controlled trials or randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of interventions aimed at improving psychological resilience. Pooled effects sizes were calculated using the random-effects model of meta-analysis.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Valid and reliable measures of psychological resilience.
RESULTS
Overall, 437 citations were retrieved and 111 peer-reviewed articles were examined in full. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria and were subject to a quality assessment, with 11 RCTs being included in the final meta-analysis. Programmes were stratified into one of three categories (1) cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based interventions, (2) mindfulness-based interventions or (3) mixed Interventions, those combining CBT and Mindfulness training. A meta-analysis found a moderate positive effect of resilience interventions (0.44 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.64) with subgroup analysis suggesting CBT-based, mindfulness and mixed interventions were effective.
CONCLUSIONS
Resilience interventions based on a combination of CBT and mindfulness techniques appear to have a positive impact on individual resilience.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Mindfulness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resilience, Psychological; Self Report; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 29903782
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017858 -
East Asian Archives of Psychiatry :... Jun 2020Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) has harmful effects on physical and mental health and quality of life. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is a treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) has harmful effects on physical and mental health and quality of life. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is a treatment option for GAD. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effectiveness of MBCT on GAD.
METHODS
Two authors independently performed the eligibility, quality assessment, and data extraction processes, and consensus was reached in case of discrepancies. Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies (randomised controlled trials, randomised trials, cluster randomised controlled trials, and clinical trials) up to November 2018 using keywords: mindfulness-based cognitive therapy OR mindfulness based cognitive therapy OR MBCT AND general anxiety disorder OR GAD*. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the revised Jadad scale. Cohen's formula was used to determine the effect size based on the mean and standard deviation of the changes in the study groups before and after the intervention.
RESULTS
Six studies that compared the effectiveness between MBCT and controls were included for analysis. The mean revised Jadad score of the six studies was 4.3 (range, 3-6). The overall mean effect size was -0.65. The funnel plot of effect sizes in relation to the effect size standard error showed a symmetrical distribution. Compared with controls, MBCT significantly improved the treatment outcome of GAD in all studies, except one.
CONCLUSION
MBCT was effective for treating GAD.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Mindfulness
PubMed: 32611828
DOI: 10.12809/eaap1885 -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2021Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the most common cause of disability worldwide, affecting about 12% to 30% of the adult population. Psychological factors play an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the most common cause of disability worldwide, affecting about 12% to 30% of the adult population. Psychological factors play an important role in the experience of pain, and may be predictive of pain persistence, disability, and long-term sick leave. The aim of this meta-analysis was to identify and to describe the most common psychological approaches used to treat patients who suffer from CLBP. A systematic search was performed on PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Central. Overall, 16 studies with a total of 1058 patients were included in the analysis. Our results suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) interventions are both associated with an improvement in terms of pain intensity and quality of life when singularly compared to usual care. Disability also improved in both groups when compared to usual care. Significant differences in fear-avoidance beliefs were noted in the CBT group compared to usual care. Therefore, psychological factors are related to and influence CLBP. It is crucial to develop curative approaches that take these variables into account. Our findings suggest that CBT and MBSR modify pain-related outcomes and that they could be implemented in clinical practice.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Low Back Pain; Mindfulness; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35010319
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010060 -
Brain and Cognition Oct 2016The objective of the current study was to systematically review the evidence of the effect of secular mindfulness techniques on function and structure of the brain.... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
The objective of the current study was to systematically review the evidence of the effect of secular mindfulness techniques on function and structure of the brain. Based on areas known from traditional meditation neuroimaging results, we aimed to explore a neuronal explanation of the stress-reducing effects of the 8-week Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) program.
METHODS
We assessed the effect of MBSR and MBCT (N=11, all MBSR), components of the programs (N=15), and dispositional mindfulness (N=4) on brain function and/or structure as assessed by (functional) magnetic resonance imaging. 21 fMRI studies and seven MRI studies were included (two studies performed both).
RESULTS
The prefrontal cortex, the cingulate cortex, the insula and the hippocampus showed increased activity, connectivity and volume in stressed, anxious and healthy participants. Additionally, the amygdala showed decreased functional activity, improved functional connectivity with the prefrontal cortex, and earlier deactivation after exposure to emotional stimuli.
CONCLUSION
Demonstrable functional and structural changes in the prefrontal cortex, cingulate cortex, insula and hippocampus are similar to changes described in studies on traditional meditation practice. In addition, MBSR led to changes in the amygdala consistent with improved emotion regulation. These findings indicate that MBSR-induced emotional and behavioral changes are related to functional and structural changes in the brain.
Topics: Brain; Connectome; Humans; Meditation; Mindfulness; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 27429096
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2016.07.001