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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
45 Own result · 26 Not checked yet · 18 Own method · 15 Own interpretation
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but no significant differences in weight loss or mental health”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but no significant differences in weight loss or mental health”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At 6 months intervention participants showed significantly greater increases in physical activity compared to controls (p<.05)”
plaindirectn = 2 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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)”
plaindirectn = 7 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Excluding intervention participants who reported 'never' applying the workshop principles at 6 months yields a valid estimate of intervention efficacy.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and significantly greater reductions in BMI (0.96 relative to controls, equivalent to 2.32kg, p<0.5)”
plaindirectn = 7 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Excluding intervention participants who reported 'never' applying the workshop principles at 6 months yields a valid estimate of intervention efficacy.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but a significant effect on physical activity, F(1, 60) = 6.63, p<.013.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Missing data are missing at random, so that replacing missing values with the mean change from the control group is valid.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but no significant improvement in fit with the addition of the intervention (R 2 = 0.31, p=.15).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results showed a significant effect of binge eating change (R 2 = 0.26, β = 0.51, p<.001)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or on mental health difficulties, F(1, 60) = 1.29, p = 0.26”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Missing data are missing at random, so that replacing missing values with the mean change from the control group is valid.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but no significant correlations with change in external eating, EEQ emotional eating, AAQ and dietary adherence.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 29
- The quote only partly states this claim. 4
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“intervention participants showed a greater reduction in binge eating compared to control participants but there were no other significant differences.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitative data suggested that the most successful part was the cognitive defusion component, with participants finding it particularly useful in relation to exercise.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“2.50 (4.88) and -0.61 (3.34) respectively for physical activity”
plainn = 16 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and showing a relative increase in physical activity of 2.81 sessions per week.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effect sizes for changes over the 6 month duration were small for BMI and GHQ and moderate for physical activity (see Table 4).”
plainn = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Excluding intervention participants who reported 'never' applying the workshop principles at 6 months yields a valid estimate of intervention efficacy.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relative reductions in BMI in the workshop condition were equivalent to 2.32kg.”
plaindirectn = 16 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the intervention had no significant impact on emotional eating, external eating or psychological flexibility.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These showed no significant effect of the intervention on BMI, F(1, 60) = 1.59, p = 0.21”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Missing data are missing at random, so that replacing missing values with the mean change from the control group is valid.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the data were re-analysed excluding those who reported 'never' using the workshop techniques at 6 months these figures rose to 2.32kg and 3.11 activity sessions per week.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For BMI change results showed significant correlations with change in DEBQ emotional eating (0.35, p<.05) and binge eating (0.45, p<.05)”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All means were in the predicted directions with BMI going down in the intervention group relative to the control group, physical activity showing an increase in the intervention group compared to a reduction in the control group and recent mental heath difficulties going down in the intervention group and up in the control group (see Table 4).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Missing data are missing at random, so that replacing missing values with the mean change from the control group is valid.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relative reductions in BMI in the intervention condition were equivalent to 1.35kg and increases in physical activity equivalent to 2.8 sessions.”
plaindirectn = 23 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Excluding intervention participants who reported 'never' applying the workshop principles at 6 months yields a valid estimate of intervention efficacy.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the changes for BMI and mental health were relatively minor with small treatment effect sizes. Physical activity showed a slightly larger change with a moderate treatment effect size (see Table 4).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Missing data are missing at random, so that replacing missing values with the mean change from the control group is valid.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results showed a trend towards significance, F (1, 58) = 2.31, p = .086.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Missing data are missing at random, so that replacing missing values with the mean change from the control group is valid.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Of particular note is that in these cases ACT appeared to be as or more effective than traditional approaches when it came to the maintenance of behavioural changes (Gifford et al., 2004; Hayes, Wilson et al., 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gifford et al., 2004 source
- Not checked yetcites Hayes, Wilson et al., 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this is the case, emotional eating can be viewed as a form of experiential avoidance.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is evidence to suggest that obesity is associated with both emotional eating and external eating .”
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although a growing number of interventions are now incorporating components aimed at this (e.g., Cooper & Fairburn, 2001; Rapoport, Clark & Wardle, 2000), the development of these still falls far short of that achieved in areas such as nicotine and alcohol dependence to which obesity has been compared (House of Commons Health Committee, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites House of Commons Health Committee, 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus knowing how to lose weight is simply not sufficient, we also need to tackle the psychological processes that lead to behaviours associated with weight gain.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, experts are increasingly recognising the need to address the psychological aspects of obesity (e.g., Byrne, 2002; Cooper & Fairburn, 2001; House of Commons Health Committee, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Byrne, 2002 source
- Not checked yetcites Cooper & Fairburn, 2001
- Not checked yetcites House of Commons Health Committee, 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“In addition, a study by Blair et al., (1990) found significant associations between levels of emotional eating and weight loss success; successful weight control was associated with decreases in emotional eating between baseline and a 1 year follow-up and with low levels of emotional eating at both time points.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blair et al., (1990) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, unsuccessful weight control was associated with increases between baseline and follow-up and with high levels at both time points.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blair et al., (1990) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“KT was not involved in recruitment and was blind to participant identities.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly half the sample (48%) attended all four workshops whilst three-quarters (74%) attended two of the four workshops.”
plainn = 31- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were allocated to the intervention and control conditions using a stratified randomisation protocol on the basis of BMI and the existence of medical conditions likely to effect weight (since these variables were considered most likely to influence study outcomes).”
plainn = 91- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown, there were no significant differences in BMI, age (though intervention participants were, on average, slightly older than control participants), level of education, % of participants with medical conditions affecting their weight, % of participants attending formal slimming clubs, number of previous diet attempts, or length spent on current diet.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The AAQ-II has been shown to have good construct, concurrent, predictive and discriminant validity (Bond et al., submitted).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bond et al., submitted
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the intervention group reported higher levels of binge eating, and lower levels of physical activity, at baseline”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · p. 23 · plain
“the intervention and control groups were not well-matched for physical activity and binge eating at baseline.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · p. 23 · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attendance was highest at the start of the programme for Workshops 1 and 2 (n=25 and 24 respectively) and dropped off for Workshops 3 and 4 (n=18 and 16 respectively).”
plainn = 25- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 31 people randomised to the workshop condition, 26 attended one or more of the workshops, 1 attended half a workshop and 4 failed to attend any workshops.”
plainn = 31- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the present study was designed as an exploratory trial only”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“JI, KT and CS had all attended a range of ACT training workshops and, as an informal assessment of treatment integrity, eight of the 12 workshops were observed by either KT or CS. During these sessions no problems relating to treatment integrity were identified.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All data were collected by assistants who were blind to participant group allocation and who were otherwise uninvolved in the project.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“qualitative data suggested that intervention participants coped better after breaking their diet (for example by avoiding prolonged feelings of guilt and thoughts of failure) which may have helped interrupt previous patterns of diet lapses leading to binge eating episodes (Ogden & Wardle, 1991).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ogden & Wardle, 1991
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has been shown to have moderate testretest reliability; fair to moderate concurrent validity and poor to fair criterion validity (Smith et al., 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Smith et al., 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The DEBQ has been shown to have satisfactory to good reliability, excellent factorial validity and satisfactory concurrent and discriminant validity (Van Strien et al., 1986; Wardle, 1987).”
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Following Pocock (1983), computer-generated random numbers were used to order intervention and control group allocation within each block.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pocock (1983)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internal reliability was moderate at baseline (alpha=0.47, n=62) but acceptable (alpha=0.62) with the exclusion of item 6 (happiness). Thus item 6 was excluded from all subsequent analyses.”
plainn = 62- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Likewise, failure to adhere to exercise and healthy eating plans may be prompted by rationalisations about, for example, being more conscientious the next day or there being exceptional circumstances that justify the relapse.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“JI was blind to the number of strata and block sizes employed within the randomisation list.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scale showed acceptable internal reliability at baseline (alpha=0.74, n=62).”
plainn = 62- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, participants in the intervention group reported starting dieting at a significantly older age than those in the control group (25 versus 20 years respectively, p<.05).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus applied to the above cognitions it may help individuals refrain from bouts of overeating and adhere to exercise and eating plans.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Findings on weight loss after mindfulness have been mixed, with some31–37 but not all38,39 studies reporting improvements in weight.”
From A Mindfulness-Based Intervention to Control Weight After Bariatric Surgery: Preliminary Results From a Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial (2016) · cites this paper as [32]
In the citing paper
“In another workshop study, 62 women were randomized to four 2-hour ACT workshops or to a control condition. At 6 months, ACT participants, relative to control, showed increases in PA and decreases in BMI, at least when nonparticipating participants were excluded.19”
From The mind your health project: a randomized controlled trial of an innovative behavioral treatment for obesity (2013) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“These findings are consistent with previously reported improvements in weight outcomes when incorporating acceptance-based skills in workshops targeting overweight and obesity.18,19”
From The mind your health project: a randomized controlled trial of an innovative behavioral treatment for obesity (2013) · cites this paper as [19]
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F (1, 58) = 2.31, p = .086”
Reported p = .086 · recomputed p = .134
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(3, 41)=2.54, p=.054”
Reported p = .054 · recomputed p = .070
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”
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
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
(1998) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e565682010-001 · Cited by 9,453
Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., et al. (2004) · Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice · doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph077 · Cited by 7,234
Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006 · Cited by 6,587
Self-citation(1999) · Cited by 5,934
The Disease Burden Associated With Overweight and Obesity
Must, A. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.16.1523 · Cited by 4,827
The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger
Stunkard, A. J., & Messick, S. (1985) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3999(85)90010-8 · Cited by 4,687
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474 · cited 1×
“Following recommendations for the development and evaluation of complex health interventions (Campbell et al., 2000), the aim of the current study was to conduct an exploratory trial of the effectiveness of a brief ACT-based group intervention.”
InfluentialPrevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., Ridgeway, V. A., Soulsby, J. M., & Lau, M. A. (2000) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.68.4.615 · Cited by 3,236
Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach.
Hill, I. D., & Pocock, S. (1984) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531186 · Cited by 2,918
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 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.
- House of Commons Health Committee, 2004, Vol. 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., & Ott, U. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691611419671 · Cited by 3,024
Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density
Hölzel, B. K., Carmody, J., Vangel, M., Congleton, C., Yerramsetti, S. M., Gard, T., & Lazar, S. W. (2011) · Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2010.08.006 · Cited by 1,914
Samdal, G. B., Eide, G. E., Barth, T., Williams, G., & Meland, E. (2017) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-017-0494-y · Cited by 788
Mindfulness‐based interventions for obesity‐related eating behaviours: a literature review
O'Reilly, G. A., Cook, L., Spruijt‐Metz, D., & Black, D. S. (2014) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.12156 · Cited by 547
(2010) · Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) · Cited by 542
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
- Semantic Scholar
- 931b1eefd6b7960d6a8e9827cb76949776128cf6
- 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
