Cited by 71Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsSleep and related disordersObstructive Sleep Apnea Research

Waking up to the problem of sleep: Can mindfulness help? A review of theory and evidence for the effects of mindfulness for sleep

Open access
Shallcross, Amanda J, Visvanathan, Pallavi D, Sperber, Sarah H, Duberstein, Zoe T·2019·Current Opinion in Psychology

Abstract

The high incidence of poor sleep and associated negative health consequences substantiates the need for effective behavioral sleep interventions. We offer an integrative model of sleep disturbance whereby key risk factors for compromised sleep quality and quantity are targeted through mindfulness practice-namely, experiential awareness, attentional control, and acceptance. Theoretical considerations and burgeoning evidence suggest that mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) may be promising treatments for improving sleep outcomes. However, evidence is mixed due to heterogeneity in design and methods across studies. More rigorous RCTs are needed to determine the efficacy and underlying mechanisms of MBI's for sleep. MBIs that are affordable, accessible, and scalable are needed to improve sleep outcomes at the population level.

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 · 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.10.005

Cites

44 of 44 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [6]Irwin M, Fortner M, Clark C, McClintick J, Costlow C, White J, Ancoli-Israel S, Gillin JC: Reduction of natural killer cell activity in primary insomnia and in major depression. Sleep Res 1995, 24: 256.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shallcross, A. J., Visvanathan, P. D., Sperber, S. H., & Duberstein, Z. T.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Shallcross, Amanda J
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
28
Pages
37-41
ISSN
2352-250X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2913708912
Cited by
71
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (K23AT009208)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Keywords
mindfulness, sleep, sleep disorders, mindfulness-based interventions, attentional control, acceptance, sleep quality, behavioral sleep interventions
MeSH terms
Attention, Awareness, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, 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