期刊
PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 108-130出版社
SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1745691620968771
关键词
mindfulness; meditation; meta-analysis; evidence-based treatments
资金
- National Institute of Mental Health [R01-MH43454, T32-MH078788]
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health [P01-AT004952, K23-AT010879]
- University of Wisconsin-Madison, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education
- Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
Based on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) showed superiority over passive controls across most conditions, but effects were smaller and less statistically significant compared to active controls. MBIs were similar or superior to specific active controls and evidence-based treatments. Results were generally robust to publication bias, but reporting of adverse effects was inconsistent.
In response to questions regarding the scientific basis for mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), we evaluated their empirical status by systematically reviewing meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched six databases for effect sizes based on four or more trials that did not combine passive and active controls. Heterogeneity, moderators, tests of publication bias, risk of bias, and adverse effects were also extracted. Representative effect sizes based on the largest number of studies were identified across a wide range of populations, problems, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (PICOS). A total of 160 effect sizes were reported in 44 meta-analyses (k = 336 RCTs, N = 30,483 participants). MBIs showed superiority to passive controls across most PICOS (ds = 0.10-0.89). Effects were typically smaller and less often statistically significant compared with active controls. MBIs were similar or superior to specific active controls and evidence-based treatments. Heterogeneity was typically moderate. Few consistent moderators were found. Results were generally robust to publication bias, although other important sources of bias were identified. Reporting of adverse effects was inconsistent. Statistical power may be lacking in meta-analyses, particularly for comparisons with active controls. Because MBIs show promise across some PICOS, future RCTs and meta-analyses should build on identified strengths and limitations of this literature.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据