Cited by 39Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Overall and differential attrition in mindfulness-based interventions: A meta-analysis

Open access
Lam, Sin U, Kirvin-Quamme, Andrew, Goldberg, Simon B.·2022·Mindfulness

Abstract

Objectives Attrition is very common in longitudinal research, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing psychological interventions. Establishing rates and predictors of attrition in mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) can assist clinical trialists and intervention developers. Differential attrition in RCTs that compared MBIs with structure and intensity matched active control conditions also provides an objective metric of relative treatment acceptability.Methods We aimed to evaluate rates and predictors of overall and differential attrition in RCTs of MBIs compared with matched active control conditions. Attrition was operationalized as loss to follow-up at post-test. Six online databases were searched.Results Across 114 studies (n = 11,288), weighted mean attrition rate was 19.1% (95% CI [.16, .22]) in MBIs and 18.6% ([.16, .21]) in control conditions. In the primary model, no significant difference was found in attrition between MBIs and controls (i.e., differential attrition; odds ratio [OR] = 1.05, [0.92, 1.19]). However, in sensitivity analyses with trim-and-fill adjustment, without outliers, and when using different estimation methods (Peto and Mantel-Haenszel), MBIs yielded slightly higher attrition (ORs = 1.10 to 1.25, p s < .050). Despite testing numerous moderators of overall and differential attrition, very few significant predictors emerged.Conclusions Results support efforts to increase the acceptability of MBIs, active controls, and/or RCTs, and highlight the possibility that for some individuals, MBIs may be less acceptable than alternative interventions. Further research including individual patient data meta-analysis is warranted to identify predictors of attrition and to characterize instances where MBIs may or may not be recommended. Meta-Analysis Review Registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/c3u7a/).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12671-022-01970-z

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Higgins JPT, & Thomas J (2019). Cochrane handbooks for systematic reviews of interventions (Second ed.). Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons.
  2. Treleaven DA (2018). Trauma-sensitive mindfulness: practices for safe and transformative healing (1st ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lam, S. U., Kirvin-Quamme, A., & Goldberg, S. B.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Goldberg, Simon B.
Venue
Mindfulness
Published
2022-09-09
Volume
13
Issue
11
Pages
2676-2690
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
OpenAlex
W4295197014
Cited by
39
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mindfulness (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (K23AT010879)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
attrition, differential attrition, mindfulness-based interventions, loss to follow-up, active control, treatment acceptability, predictors of attrition, attrition rates, randomized controlled trials

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