Cited by 20Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsCancer survivorship and careReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Being mindful of mindfulness interventions in cancer: A systematic review of intervention reporting and study methodology

Shaw, Joanne M., Sekelja, Natasha, Frasca, Diana, Dhillon, Haryana M., Price, Melanie A.·2018·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

Objectives: While mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy (MBCT) have demonstrated efficacy in clinical populations, the potential therapeutic benefit of mindfulness in the context of cancer is less clear. The aim of this review was to critically appraise mindfulness intervention reporting and study methodology. Methods: Studies using randomized control trial design and/or a control arm were included. PubMed, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Embase databases between January 1999 and April 2017 were searched. Studies were assessed on (1) reported theoretical framework, (2) intervention description, and (3) justification of modifications to standardized MBSR/MBCT. The overall quality of study design and research methodology were also assessed. Results: Of 30 studies identified, none adhered to MBSR. Modified versions of MBSR were reported in 19 studies. Five studies reported variants of MBCT, 1 used a combination of MBSR/MBCT, and 5 inadequately documented the intervention/ theoretical framework. Overall, component and timeline modifications were poorly documented and justified. Mean intervention contact time was less than standardized MBSR/MBCT protocols. Target outcomes were poorly justified, and 12 studies failed to identify a primary aim, reporting multiple outcomes. Only 9 of 15 studies recruiting clinical populations included clinical cutoffs, and an active therapeutic control was included in 4 studies. Conclusions: Mindfulness is increasingly considered a standard therapy in psycho‐oncology. While many studies proclaim benefits, considerable variability, modification to standardized protocols, and claims of benefit often reflect decreases in sub‐clinical supportive care symptomology rather than therapeutic relief of clinically significant psychological disorders.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.4651

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shaw, J. M., Sekelja, N., Frasca, D., Dhillon, H. M., & Price, M. A.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Shaw, Joanne M.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
1162-1171
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2790598797
Cited by
20
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
mindfulness-based stress reduction, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, mindfulness-based interventions, cancer, intervention reporting quality, protocol modification, research methodology, randomized controlled trials, psychological distress in cancer patients
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Clinical Trials as Topic, Female, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Research Design, Stress, Psychological, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Mindfulness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review