-
PloS One 2022Sport psychology as an academic pursuit is nearly two centuries old. An enduring goal since inception has been to understand how psychological techniques can improve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Sport psychology as an academic pursuit is nearly two centuries old. An enduring goal since inception has been to understand how psychological techniques can improve athletic performance. Although much evidence exists in the form of meta-analytic reviews related to sport psychology and performance, a systematic review of these meta-analyses is absent from the literature. We aimed to synthesize the extant literature to gain insights into the overall impact of sport psychology on athletic performance. Guided by the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews, we reviewed relevant articles identified via the EBSCOhost interface. Thirty meta-analyses published between 1983 and 2021 met the inclusion criteria, covering 16 distinct sport psychology constructs. Overall, sport psychology interventions/variables hypothesized to enhance performance (e.g., cohesion, confidence, mindfulness) were shown to have a moderate beneficial effect (d = 0.51), whereas variables hypothesized to be detrimental to performance (e.g., cognitive anxiety, depression, ego climate) had a small negative effect (d = -0.21). The quality rating of meta-analyses did not significantly moderate the magnitude of observed effects, nor did the research design (i.e., intervention vs. correlation) of the primary studies included in the meta-analyses. Our review strengthens the evidence base for sport psychology techniques and may be of great practical value to practitioners. We provide recommendations for future research in the area.
Topics: Anxiety; Athletic Performance; Humans; Mindfulness; Psychology, Sports
PubMed: 35171944
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263408 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022Mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions may aid smoking cessation by teaching individuals to pay attention to, and work mindfully with, negative affective... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions may aid smoking cessation by teaching individuals to pay attention to, and work mindfully with, negative affective states, cravings, and other symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Types of mindfulness-based interventions include mindfulness training, which involves training in meditation; acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT); distress tolerance training; and yoga.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation among people who smoke, and whether these interventions have an effect on mental health outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trial registries to 15 April 2021. We also employed an automated search strategy, developed as part of the Human Behaviour Change Project, using Microsoft Academic.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared a mindfulness-based intervention for smoking cessation with another smoking cessation programme or no treatment, and assessed smoking cessation at six months or longer. We excluded studies that solely recruited pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking cessation at the longest time point, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of intervention and type of comparator. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We summarised mental health outcomes narratively.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 studies, with 8186 participants. Most recruited adults from the community, and the majority (15 studies) were conducted in the USA. We judged four of the studies to be at low risk of bias, nine at unclear risk, and eight at high risk. Mindfulness-based interventions varied considerably in design and content, as did comparators, therefore, we pooled small groups of relatively comparable studies. We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of mindfulness training interventions on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.46; I = 0%; 3 studies, 542 participants; low-certainty evidence), less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.19; I = 60%; 5 studies, 813 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or no treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.53; 1 study, 325 participants; low-certainty evidence). In each comparison, the 95% CI encompassed benefit (i.e. higher quit rates), harm (i.e. lower quit rates) and no difference. In one study of mindfulness-based relapse prevention, we did not detect a clear benefit or harm of the intervention over no treatment (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.67; 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of ACT on quit rates compared with less intensive behavioural treatments, including nicotine replacement therapy alone (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.02; 1 study, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence), brief advice (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.75; 1 study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or less intensive ACT (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was a high level of heterogeneity (I = 82%) across studies comparing ACT with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatments, meaning it was not appropriate to report a pooled result. We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of distress tolerance training on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.98; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence) or less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 8.08; 1 study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not detect a clear benefit or harm of yoga on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.16; 1 study, 55 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Excluding studies at high risk of bias did not substantially alter the results, nor did using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised. Nine studies reported on changes in mental health and well-being, including depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and negative and positive affect. Variation in measures and methodological differences between studies meant we could not meta-analyse these data. One study found a greater reduction in perceived stress in participants who received a face-to-face mindfulness training programme versus an intensity-matched programme. However, the remaining eight studies found no clinically meaningful differences in mental health and well-being between participants who received mindfulness-based treatments and participants who received another treatment or no treatment (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not detect a clear benefit of mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions for increasing smoking quit rates or changing mental health and well-being. This was the case when compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment, less intensive smoking cessation treatment, or no treatment. However, the evidence was of low and very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, meaning future evidence may very likely change our interpretation of the results. Further RCTs of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation compared with active comparators are needed. There is also a need for more consistent reporting of mental health and well-being outcomes in studies of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation.
Topics: Adult; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Female; Humans; Mindfulness; Nicotine; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices
PubMed: 35420700
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013696.pub2 -
Scientific Reports Oct 2021This meta-analysis systematically reviewed the evidence on standardized acceptance-/mindfulness-based interventions in DSM-5 anxiety disorders. Randomized controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analysis systematically reviewed the evidence on standardized acceptance-/mindfulness-based interventions in DSM-5 anxiety disorders. Randomized controlled trials examining Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) were searched via PubMed, Central, PsycInfo, and Scopus until June 2021. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for primary outcomes (anxiety) and secondary ones (depression and quality of life). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool. We found 23 studies, mostly of unclear risk of bias, including 1815 adults with different DSM-5 anxiety disorders. ACT, MBCT and MBSR led to short-term effects on clinician- and patient-rated anxiety in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU alone. In comparison to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), ACT and MBCT showed comparable effects on both anxiety outcomes, while MBSR showed significantly lower effects. Analyses up to 6 and 12 months did not reveal significant differences compared to TAU or CBT. Effects on depression and quality of life showed similar trends. Statistical heterogeneity was moderate to considerable. Adverse events were reported insufficiently. The evidence suggests short-term anxiolytic effects of acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions. Specific treatment effects exceeding those of placebo mechanisms remain unclear. Protocol registry: Registered at Prospero on November 3rd, 2017 (CRD42017076810).
Topics: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; Anxiety Disorders; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; Humans; Mindfulness; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34650179
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-99882-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute to the popularity of complementary methods of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many women would like to avoid pharmacological or invasive methods of pain management in labour and this may contribute to the popularity of complementary methods of pain management. This review examined currently available evidence on the use of relaxation therapies for pain management in labour. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effects of mind-body relaxation techniques for pain management in labour on maternal and neonatal well-being during and after labour.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 5 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to 24 May 2017), CINAHL (1980 to 24 May 2017), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (18 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (18 May 2017), the ISRCTN Register (18 May 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 May 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (including quasi randomised and cluster trials) comparing relaxation methods with standard care, no treatment, other non-pharmacological forms of pain management in labour or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We attempted to contact study authors for additional information. We assessed evidence quality with GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
This review update includes 19 studies (2519 women), 15 of which (1731 women) contribute data. Interventions examined included relaxation, yoga, music and mindfulness. Approximately half of the studies had a low risk of bias for random sequence generation and attrition bias. The majority of studies had a high risk of bias for performance and detection bias, and unclear risk of bias for, allocation concealment, reporting bias and other bias. We assessed the evidence from these studies as ranging from low to very low quality, and therefore the effects below should be interpreted with caution.RelaxationWe found that relaxation compared to usual care provided lowered the intensity of pain (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) during the latent phase of labour (mean difference (MD) -1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.97 to -0.53, one trial, 40 women). Four trials reported pain intensity in the active phase; there was high heterogeneity between trials and very low-quality evidence suggested that there was no strong evidence that the effects were any different between groups for this outcome (MD -1.08, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.41, four trials, 271 women, random-effects analysis). Very low-quality evidence showed that women receiving relaxation reported greater satisfaction with pain relief during labour (risk ratio (RR) 8.00, 95% CI 1.10 to 58.19, one trial, 40 women), and showed no clear benefit for satisfaction with childbirth experience (assessed using different scales) (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.31, three trials, 1176 women). For safety outcomes there was very low-quality evidence of no clear reduction in assisted vaginal birth (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.84, four trials, 1122 women) or in caesarean section rates (average RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.01, four trials, 1122 women). Sense of control in labour, and breastfeeding were not reported under this comparison.YogaWhen comparing yoga to control interventions there was low-quality evidence that yoga lowered pain intensity (measured on a scale of 0 to 10) with low scores indicating less pain) (MD -6.12, 95% CI -11.77 to -0.47, one trial, 66 women), greater satisfaction with pain relief (MD 7.88, 95% CI 1.51 to 14.25, one trial, 66 women) and greater satisfaction with childbirth experience (MD 6.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 12.42 one trial, 66 women (assessed using the Maternal Comfort Scale with higher score indicating greater comfort). Sense of control in labour, breastfeeding, assisted vaginal birth, and caesarean section were not reported under this comparison.MusicWhen comparing music to control interventions there was evidence of lower pain intensity in the latent phase for women receiving music (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with low scores indicating less pain) (MD -0.73, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.45, random-effects analysis, two trials, 192 women) and very low-quality evidence of no clear benefit in the active phase (MD -0.51, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.07, three trials, 217 women). Very low-quality evidence suggested no clear benefit in terms of reducing assisted vaginal birth (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05, one trial, 156 women) or caesarean section rate (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.70, two trials, 216 women). Satisfaction with pain relief, sense of control in labour, satisfaction with childbirth experience, and breastfeeding were not reported under this comparison.Audio analgesiaOne trial evaluating audio analgesia versus control only reported one outcome and showed no evidence of benefit in satisfaction with pain relief.MindfulnessOne trial evaluating mindfulness versus usual care found an increase in sense of control for the mindfulness group (using the Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory) (MD 31.30, 95% CI 1.61 to 60.99, 26 women). There is no strong evidence that the effects were any different between groups for satisfaction in childbirth, or for caesarean section rate, need for assisted vaginal delivery or need for pharmacological pain relief. No other outcomes were reported in this trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Relaxation, yoga and music may have a role with reducing pain, and increasing satisfaction with pain relief, although the quality of evidence varies between very low to low. There was insufficient evidence for the role of mindfulness and audio-analgesia. The majority of trials did not report on the safety of the interventions. Further randomised controlled trials of relaxation modalities for pain management in labour are needed. Trials should be adequately powered and include clinically relevant outcomes such as those described in this review.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Labor Pain; Mindfulness; Music Therapy; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Relaxation Therapy; Supine Position; Yoga
PubMed: 29589650
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009514.pub2 -
Current Diabetes Reports Aug 2021To assess the pleiotropic effects of ketogenic diets (KD) on glucose control, changes in medication, and weight loss in individuals with type 2 diabetes, and to evaluate... (Review)
Review
To assess the pleiotropic effects of ketogenic diets (KD) on glucose control, changes in medication, and weight loss in individuals with type 2 diabetes, and to evaluate its practical feasibility RECENT FINDINGS: KD results in improved HbA1c already after 3 weeks, and the effect seems to persist for at least 1 year. This is associated with a reduction in glucose-lowering medications. The weight loss observed after a short time period seems to be maintained with a long-term diet. Adequate support (supportive psychological counseling, enhancing positive affectivity, reinforcing mindful eating) is necessary to achieve a benefit and to assure adherence. Despite the documented decrease in HbA1, a definitive causal effect of KD remains to be proven. KD should be performed under strict medical supervision. Future research should clarify how compliance can be maximized and how ketosis can be optimally monitored.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted; Diet, Ketogenic; Humans; Ketosis; Weight Loss
PubMed: 34448957
DOI: 10.1007/s11892-021-01399-z -
Journal of Alternative and... May 2017Mind-body therapies are often used by people with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). However, there has been little examination into which types of mind-body therapies... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mind-body therapies are often used by people with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). However, there has been little examination into which types of mind-body therapies have been investigated for people with ASD and for what purposes. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the existing evidence for mind-body therapies for people with ASD, particularly to determine the types of mind-body therapies used and the outcomes that are targeted.
METHODS
PubMed, PsychInfo, and Scopus were searched using terms for ASD and mind-body therapies. Sixteen studies were selected for review; these studies tested interventions using mindfulness, meditation, yoga, Nei Yang Gong, and acceptance commitment therapy. Most study outcomes targeted behavior, psychological symptoms, and quality of life for children and adults with ASD as well as their parents.
RESULTS
There was little overlap between studies on the types of mind-body therapies used and associated outcomes, and only three of the studies were randomized controlled trials. Most studies were small and uncontrolled. Some studies modified the mind-body therapies to increase accessibility for people with ASD.
CONCLUSION
The evidence for mind-body therapies for people with ASD is limited and would benefit from larger randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Asperger Syndrome; Autistic Disorder; Humans; Mind-Body Therapies; Mindfulness; Yoga
PubMed: 28437148
DOI: 10.1089/acm.2016.0336 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Sep 2021Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs) have been increasingly proposed as treatment in patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), showing promising... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs) have been increasingly proposed as treatment in patients with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), showing promising results on different proposed outcomes, in both children and adults.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review and meta-analyse studies concerning the effects of MBIs on either ADHD and associated features, associated clinical conditions, neurocognitive impairments, mindfulness skills, global functioning and quality of life.
METHODS
Searches were conducted on five databases, including controlled and observational studies on both adults and children populations. The review process was compliant to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Meta-analyses and meta-regression models were conducted.
RESULTS
Thirty-one full-texts were included. In both adults and children, MBIs showed to be more effective than waiting lists in improving ADHD symptoms and some other outcomes. In adults, a medium pooled effect size was shown by meta-analysis for ADHD symptoms but in some cases a publication bias was detected. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression confirmed the gap detected by our systematic review between the medium/large effect size of inactive-controlled studies and the low/negligible one of active-controlled studies. In children, no active-controlled studies have been conducted. Mindfulness Awareness Practice (MAP) and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) were the most used protocols in adult studies, whereas a combination of MBCT and Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) was more preferred for children and adolescent patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Even if further studies with a better methodology are needed, we can suggest the MBIs may be useful as complementation and not as replacement of other active interventions.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Mindfulness; Quality of Life; Waiting Lists
PubMed: 34146899
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.05.068 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Substance use disorders (SUDs) are highly prevalent and associated with a substantial public health burden. Although evidence-based interventions exist for treating... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Substance use disorders (SUDs) are highly prevalent and associated with a substantial public health burden. Although evidence-based interventions exist for treating SUDs, many individuals remain symptomatic despite treatment, and relapse is common.Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been examined for the treatment of SUDs, but available evidence is mixed.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of MBIs for SUDs in terms of substance use outcomes, craving and adverse events compared to standard care, further psychotherapeutic, psychosocial or pharmacological interventions, or instructions, waiting list and no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to April 2021: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We searched two trial registries and checked the reference lists of included studies for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs testing a MBI versus no treatment or another treatment in individuals with SUDs. SUDs included alcohol and/or drug use disorders but excluded tobacco use disorders. MBIs were defined as interventions including training in mindfulness meditation with repeated meditation practice. Studies in which SUDs were formally diagnosed as well as those merely demonstrating elevated SUD risk were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, with 35 RCTs involving 2825 participants eligible for meta-analysis. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and most were at high risk of detection bias. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) versus no treatment Twenty-four RCTs included a comparison between MBI and no treatment. The evidence was uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to no treatment on all primary outcomes: continuous abstinence rate (post: risk ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.14, 1 RCT, 112 participants; follow-up: RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.01, 1 RCT, 112 participants); percentage of days with substance use (post-treatment: standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.05, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.47, 4 RCTs, 248 participants; follow-up: SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.54, 3 RCTs, 167 participants); and consumed amount (post-treatment: SMD = 0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.52, 3 RCTs, 221 participants; follow-up: SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.66, 2 RCTs, 142 participants). Evidence was uncertain for craving intensity and serious adverse events. Analysis of treatment acceptability indicated MBIs result in little to no increase in study attrition relative to no treatment (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, 21 RCTs, 1087 participants). Certainty of evidence for all other outcomes was very low due to imprecision, risk of bias, and/or inconsistency. Data were unavailable to evaluate adverse events. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) versus other treatments (standard of care, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, support group, physical exercise, medication) Nineteen RCTs included a comparison between MBI and another treatment. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to other treatments on continuous abstinence rate at post-treatment (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.44, 1 RCT, 286 participants) and follow-up (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.16, 1 RCT, 286 participants), and on consumed amount at post-treatment (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.39, 1 RCT, 25 participants) due to imprecision and risk of bias. The evidence suggests that MBIs reduce percentage of days with substance use slightly relative to other treatments at post-treatment (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.03, 5 RCTs, 523 participants) and follow-up (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.17, 3 RCTs, 409 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to other treatments on craving intensity due to imprecision and inconsistency. Analysis of treatment acceptability indicated MBIs result in little to no increase in attrition relative to other treatments (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26, 14 RCTs, 1531 participants). Data were unavailable to evaluate adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In comparison with no treatment, the evidence is uncertain regarding the impact of MBIs on SUD-related outcomes. MBIs result in little to no higher attrition than no treatment. In comparison with other treatments, MBIs may slightly reduce days with substance use at post-treatment and follow-up (4 to 10 months). The evidence is uncertain regarding the impact of MBIs relative to other treatments on abstinence, consumed substance amount, or craving. MBIs result in little to no higher attrition than other treatments. Few studies reported adverse events.
Topics: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Craving; Humans; Mindfulness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Substance-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34668188
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011723.pub2 -
Journal of Occupational Health... Feb 2019This meta-analytic review responds to promises in the research literature and public domain about the benefits of workplace mindfulness training. It synthesizes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This meta-analytic review responds to promises in the research literature and public domain about the benefits of workplace mindfulness training. It synthesizes randomized controlled trial evidence from workplace-delivered training for changes in mindfulness, stress, mental health, well-being, and work performance outcomes. Going beyond extant reviews, this article explores the influence of variability in workforce and intervention characteristics for reducing perceived stress. Meta-effect estimates (Hedge's g) were computed using data from 23 studies. Results indicate beneficial effects following training for mindfulness (g = 0.45, p < .001) and stress (g = 0.56, p < .001), anxiety (g = 0.62, p < .001) and psychological distress (g = 0.69, p < .001), and for well-being (g = 0.46, p = .002) and sleep (g = 0.26, p = .003). No conclusions could be drawn from pooled data for burnout due to ambivalence in results, for depression due to publication bias, or for work performance due to insufficient data. The potential for integrating the construct of mindfulness within job demands-resources, coping, and prevention theories of work stress is considered in relation to the results. Limitations to study designs and reporting are addressed, and recommendations to advance research in this field are made. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Topics: Adaptation, Psychological; Anxiety; Humans; Mindfulness; Occupational Health; Occupational Stress; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep; Work Performance; Workplace
PubMed: 30714811
DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000146