The effects of mindfulness training on weight-loss and health-related behaviours in adults with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this study was to conduct a comprehensive quantitative synthesis of the effects of mindfulness training interventions on weight-loss and health behaviours in adults with overweight and obesity using meta-analytic techniques. Studies included in the analysis (k=12) were randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of any form of mindfulness training on weight loss, impulsive eating, binge eating, or physical activity participation in adults with overweight and obesity. Random effects meta-analysis revealed that mindfulness training had no significant effect on weight loss, but an overall negative effect on impulsive eating (d=-1.13) and binge eating (d=-.90), and a positive effect on physical activity levels (d=.42). Meta-regression analysis showed that methodological features of included studies accounted for 100% of statistical heterogeneity of the effects of mindfulness training on weight loss (R 2 =1,00). Among methodological features, the only significant predictor of weight loss was follow-up distance from post-intervention (β=1.18; p<.05), suggesting that the longer follow-up distances were associated with greater weight loss. Results suggest that mindfulness training has short-term benefits on health-related behaviours. Future studies should explore the effectiveness of mindfulness training on long-term post-intervention weight loss in adults with overweight and obesity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Existing reviews with a focus on mindfulness often include acceptance-based interventions.
“Existing reviews with a focus on mindfulness often include acceptancebased interventions. 3-14”
From Randomized Controlled Trials of Mindfulness and Acceptance-Based Interventions Over the Past Two Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis. (2021) · cites this paper as [12]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 78 · Cited by 173
- Authors
- Ruffault, A., Czernichow, S., Hagger, M. S., Ferrand, M., Erichot, N., Carette, C., Boujut, E., & Flahault, C.
- Affiliations
- Sorbonne Paris Cité (FR)
- Inserm (FR)
- Curtin University (AU)
- Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Ruffault, Alexis
- Venue
- Obesity Research & Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-09
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 90-111
- ISSN
- 1871-403X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2523716878
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 1.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hal.science
- Licence
- Locations
- Obesity Research & Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Liège) (submittedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Keywords
- mindfulness training, weight loss, obesity, overweight, impulsive eating, binge eating, physical activity, health behavior, methodological characteristics
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Behavior Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Weight Loss, Health Behavior, Exercise, Body Mass Index, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Overweight, 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
