Elsevier

Clinical Psychology Review

Volume 59, February 2018, Pages 52-60
Clinical Psychology Review

Review
Mindfulness-based interventions for psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.011Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We examined the relative efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions on clinical symptoms of psychiatric disorders.

  • 142 randomized clinical trials were included (N = 12,005 participants). Control conditions were coded on a five-tier system.

  • At post-treatment, mindfulness interventions were equivalent to evidence-based treatments and superior to other comparisons.

  • At follow-up, mindfulness interventions were equivalent to minimal and evidence-based treatments and superior to others.

  • The most consistent evidence for mindfulness-based interventions was seen for depression, pain, smoking, and addictions.

Abstract

Despite widespread scientific and popular interest in mindfulness-based interventions, questions regarding the empirical status of these treatments remain. We sought to examine the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for clinical populations on disorder-specific symptoms. To address the question of relative efficacy, we coded the strength of the comparison group into five categories: no treatment, minimal treatment, non-specific active control, specific active control, and evidence-based treatment. A total of 142 non-overlapping samples and 12,005 participants were included. At post-treatment, mindfulness-based interventions were superior to no treatment (d = 0.55), minimal treatment (d = 0.37), non-specific active controls (d = 0.35), and specific active controls (d = 0.23). Mindfulness conditions did not differ from evidence-based treatments (d =  0.004). At follow-up, mindfulness-based interventions were superior to no treatment conditions (d = 0.50), non-specific active controls (d = 0.52), and specific active controls (d = 0.29). Mindfulness conditions did not differ from minimal treatment conditions (d = 0.38) and evidence-based treatments (d = 0.09). Effects on specific disorder subgroups showed the most consistent evidence in support of mindfulness for depression, pain conditions, smoking, and addictive disorders. Results support the notion that mindfulness-based interventions hold promise as evidence-based treatments.

Introduction

Mindfulness-based interventions have experienced a marked increase in scientific and popular interest in the past two decades. Recent commentaries have, however, raised questions regarding the evidence base for this family of therapies. Farias, Wikholm, and Delmonte (2016) voiced several concerns, particularly the use of non-active control conditions (i.e., waitlist controls) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of mindfulness therapies along with a lack of specificity regarding outcomes that these treatments may or may not impact. Others have questioned the degree to which selective reporting of results may introduce systematic bias into the literature, thereby overstating the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (Coronado-Montoya et al., 2016).

One recent meta-analysis estimated the effects of meditation-based interventions (including mindfulness as well as other meditative techniques) compared to active control conditions that, analogous to placebos in pharmaceutical trials, provide non-specific treatment ingredients (e.g., expectancy; Goyal et al., 2014). While mindfulness meditation programs showed effects on anxiety, depression, and pain when compared with non-specific treatment controls, there was no evidence that these treatments were superior to specific active controls (i.e., other active treatments).

The current meta-analysis was intended to further interrogate the findings of Goyal et al. (2014). We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of RCTs examining the effects of mindfulness-based interventions on disorder-specific symptoms across psychiatric populations. Rather than restrict our sample to certain types of comparison conditions, we aimed to evaluate empirically the degree to which outcomes are influenced by the characteristics of the control group. A more nuanced comparison to type of control condition may provide clinicians important information regarding when a mindfulness intervention should be favored compared to other known interventions. While other comprehensive meta-analyses have suggested that mindfulness-based interventions can impact clinical outcomes (e.g., anxiety, depression; Khoury et al., 2013), and several meta-analyses have examined the evidence for specific psychiatric conditions (e.g., Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD]; Cairncross & Miller, 2016), no published comprehensive meta-analytic review has examined effects on disorder-specific symptoms across psychiatric conditions. Our study sought to examine: (1) the degree to which mindfulness-based interventions compare with a variety of control conditions, including treatments with established efficacy (i.e., evidence-based treatments); (2) for which specific disorders mindfulness-based interventions appear most efficacious, and (3) potential sources of bias.

Section snippets

Eligibility criteria

We included all RCTs of mindfulness-based interventions for adult patients with psychiatric diagnoses for which there are evidence-based treatments per the American Psychological Association's (APA, 2017) Division 12 (Society of Clinical Psychology; see Supplemental materials Table 1a). To be eligible, samples had to have either a formal diagnosis or elevated symptoms of a given disorder (i.e., above a given cut-off on a symptom inventory, e.g., score greater than five on the Pittsburgh Sleep

Study selection

A total of 9067 citations were retrieved. After 3485 duplicates were removed, 5582 unique titles and/or abstracts were coded. Following the application of the exclusion criteria (see PRISMA flow diagram in Fig. 1), 171 studies were retained for analysis representing 142 independent samples, 172 unique comparisons (some studies included multiple comparison groups and comorbid samples), and 12,005 participants. Included studies were published between 2000 and 2016.

Study characteristics

The aggregate effect size (d)

Discussion

Several conclusions can be drawn from these findings. At the most basic level, our results suggest that there is an empirical basis for mindfulness-based therapies. Mindfulness treatments were shown, in general, to be of similar potency with first-line psychological (and psychiatric) interventions when compared directly and superior to other active comparison conditions (as well as waitlist control conditions), with relatively little variation across disorders. These effects were generally

Role of funding source

This work was supported by National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Grant (P01AT004952) to RDJ and Mind & Life Institute Francisco J. Varela Award to SBG.

The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations

Contributors

SG drafted the protocol with BW, RD, and TS. SG, RT, and PG assessed the eligibility of the studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. SG developed the statistical code and did the analyses. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the findings. SG drafted the manuscript, to which all authors contributed. RD and SG obtained the funding.

Conflict of interests

RD is the founder, president, and serves on the board of directors for the non-profit organization, Healthy Minds Innovations, Inc. In addition, RD serves on the board of directors for the Mind and Life Institute.

References (43)

  • American Psychological Association

    Research-supported psychological treatments

  • N.H. Asl et al.

    Effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for co-morbid depression in drug-dependent males

    Archives of Psychiatric Nursing

    (2014)
  • D. Atkins et al.

    Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

    BMC Health Services Research

    (2004)
  • A.T. Beck et al.

    Beck depression inventory manual

    (1996)
  • B. Becker

    Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures

    British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology

    (1988)
  • D.S. Black

    Mindfulness research guide: A new paradigm for managing empirical health information

    Mindfulness

    (2012)
  • D.S. Black et al.

    Mindfulness meditation and improvement in sleep quality and daytime impairment among older adults with sleep disturbances: A randomized clinical trial

    JAMA Internal Medicine

    (2015)
  • S. Bowen et al.

    Relative efficacy of mindfulness-based relapse prevention, standard relapse prevention, and treatment as usual for substance use disorders: A randomized clinical trial

    JAMA Psychiatry

    (2014)
  • M. Cairncross et al.

    The effectiveness of mindfulness-based therapies for ADHD: A meta-analytic review

    Journal of Attention Disorders

    (2016)
  • B. Chavooshi et al.

    Efficacy of intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy for medically unexplained pain: A pilot three-armed randomized controlled trial comparison with mindfulness-based stress reduction

    Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

    (2016)
  • D. Cicchetti

    Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology

    Psychological Assessment

    (1994)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text