Cited by 366Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsEating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 45 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Exploratory randomised controlled trial of a mindfulness-based weight loss intervention for women

Abstract

To explore the efficacy of a mindfulness-based weight loss intervention for women. Sixty-two women (ages 19-64; BMI 22.5-52.1) who were attempting to lose weight were randomised to an intervention or control condition. The former were invited to attend four 2-h workshops, the latter were asked to continue with their normal diets. Data were collected at baseline, 4 and 6 months. BMI, physical activity, mental health. At 6 months intervention participants showed significantly greater increases in physical activity compared to controls (p<.05) but no significant differences in weight loss or mental health. However, when intervention participants who reported 'never' applying the workshop principles at 6 months (n=7) were excluded, results showed both significantly greater increases in physical activity (3.1 sessions per week relative to controls, p<.05) and significantly greater reductions in BMI (0.96 relative to controls, equivalent to 2.32 kg, p<0.5). Reductions in BMI were mediated primarily by reductions in binge eating. Despite its brevity, the intervention was successful at bringing about change. Further refinements should increase its efficacy.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This exploratory RCT tested a brief mindfulness/ACT-based weight-loss intervention in 62 women attempting to lose weight. At 6 months it significantly increased physical activity but did not significantly improve BMI or mental health overall; BMI reductions appeared when participants who never applied the principles were excluded, and these reductions were mediated primarily by reduced binge eating.

Key findings

  • In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant intervention effect on BMI, F(1, 60)=1.59, p=.21, or mental health difficulties, F(1, 60)=1.29, p=.26, but a significant effect on physical activity, F(1, 60)=6.63, p<.013.
  • In the intervention-efficacy analysis excluding non-attenders, intervention participants showed significantly greater increases in physical activity, t(44)=2.46, p=.018, but no significant BMI difference, t(45)=1.40, p=.17.
  • Excluding intervention participants who reported “never” applying workshop principles at 6 months (n=7), BMI reductions were significantly greater in the intervention group, t(38)=2.24, p=.031, equivalent to 2.32 kg relative to controls, and physical activity increases were significantly greater, t(38)=2.36, p=.023.
  • BMI change was mediated primarily by reductions in binge eating: BMI change correlated with binge-eating change (0.45, p<.05), and hierarchical regression suggested the intervention effect on BMI was largely, but not wholly, brought about by reductions in binge eating.

Methods

  • Randomised controlled trial of 62 women aged 19–64 with BMI 22.5–52.1 who were attempting to lose weight; participants were stratified by BMI and medical conditions and allocated to an intervention or control condition.
  • Intervention participants were invited to four 2-hour mindfulness/ACT-based workshops over three consecutive weeks plus a follow-up session about three months later; controls were asked to continue their normal diets. Data were collected at baseline, 4 months, and 6 months.
  • Main outcomes were BMI, physical activity (BPAT), and mental health (GHQ-12); hypothesised mediators included emotional/external eating (DEBQ), emotional eating (EEQ), binge eating (BES), acceptance/action (AAQ-II), and dietary adherence. Analyses included intention-to-treat MANOVA, follow-up tests, efficacy analyses excluding non-attenders, correlations, and hierarchical regression for mediation.

Limitations

  • The paper states it was an exploratory trial; future evaluations should include a standard rather than no-treatment control, extend beyond 6 months, and account for clustering effects because the intervention was delivered in groups.
  • The paper also states the intervention and control groups were not well-matched for physical activity and binge eating at baseline, so results for these variables need replication.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was small (62 randomised; efficacy analyses used 23 intervention and 24 controls; moderator analysis used 16 intervention and 24 controls), and several mediator/moderator measures relied on self-report.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.012

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

9 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 45 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 61 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 4
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 22
43 of 43
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Missing data are missing at random, so that replacing missing values with the mean change from the control group is valid.

    “missing data were replaced by calculating the mean change from previous observations in the control group and adding or subtracting this figure from the previous observation relating to the missing data point.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Excluding intervention participants who reported 'never' applying the workshop principles at 6 months yields a valid estimate of intervention efficacy.

    “when intervention participants who reported 'never' applying the workshop principles at 6 months (n=7) were excluded, results showed both significantly greater increases in physical activity”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Self-reported application of workshop principles at 6 months accurately reflects actual use.

    “the extent to which participants reported still applying the workshop principles at 6 months”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The present study is the first attempt to adapt mindfulness-based techniques for a programme designed exclusively for weight loss.

    “As far as we are aware the present study is the first attempt to adapt mindfulness based techniques for a programme designed exclusively for weight loss.”
4 of 4

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F (1, 58) = 2.31, p = .086

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .086 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .134. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .086 · recomputed p = .134

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(3, 41)=2.54, p = .054

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .054 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .070. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .054 · recomputed p = .070

2 of 2

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 58) = 2.31reported p = .086 · recomputed p = .134

    “F (1, 58) = 2.31, p = .086”

  • Doesn’t add upF(3, 41) = 2.54reported p = .054 · recomputed p = .070

    “F(3, 41)=2.54, p = .054”

  • ConsistentF(1, 60) = 1.59reported p = .21 · recomputed p = .212

    “F(1, 60) = 1.59, p = .21”

  • ConsistentF(1, 60) = 1.29reported p = .26 · recomputed p = .261

    “F(1, 60) = 1.29, p = .26”

  • Consistentt(44) = 2.46reported p = .018 · recomputed p = .018

    “t(44)=2.46, p = .018”

  • Consistentt(45) = 1.4reported p = .17 · recomputed p = .168

    “t(45)=1.40, p = .17”

  • Consistentt(45) = 0.87reported p = .39 · recomputed p = .389

    “t(45)=0.87, p = .39”

  • Consistentt(38) = 2.24reported p = .031 · recomputed p = .031

    “t(38)=2.24, p = .031”

  • Consistentt(38) = 2.36reported p = .023 · recomputed p = .024

    “t(38)=2.36, p = .023”

9 of 9

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Orcutt, H. K., & Waltz, T., et al. (under review). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II: a revised measure of psychological flexibility and acceptance.
  2. House of Commons Health Committee, 2004, Vol. 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–365 of 365

Metadata

Authors
Tapper, K., Shaw, C., Ilsley, J., Hill, A. J., Bond, F. W., & Moore, L.
Affiliations
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • University of Glamorgan (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Tapper, Katy
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-04
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
396-404
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2131107593
Cited by
366
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 18
FWCI
10.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007543/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
mindfulness-based interventions, weight loss, women, binge eating, physical activity, body mass index, mental health
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Bulimia, Energy Intake, Cognition, Emotions, Feeding Behavior, Female, Humans, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Weight Loss, Body Mass Index, Patient Selection, Young Adult

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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