Cited by 61Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsDigital Mental Health Interventions

The empirical support for mindfulness-based interventions for common psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Hedman-Lagerlöf, Maria, Hedman-Lagerlöf, Erik, Öst, Lars-Göran·2018·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have become widely used for common mental disorders (CMDs) but the state of the evidence has not been sufficiently investigated. The aims for this study were: (1) to quantify the effect size of MBIs for CMDs in the acute phase; (2) to explore moderator variables; and (3) to evaluate the evidence status of MBIs for the CMDs it has been tried for. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted. RCTs that evaluated MBI and included patients with a primary manifest CMD was included. Methodological quality, the risk of bias, publication bias and evidence status were assessed. Literature searches gave 2448 hits and 19 studies were included. MBIs were more effective than no treatment (g = 1.07) and treatment-as-usual (g = 0.40) but not in comparison to placebo (g = 0.17) or other active treatments (g = −0.01). Methodological quality was negatively correlated with outcome. For all psychiatric disorders it has been tested, MBIs were judged to have weak or no empirical support. The conclusion of the study is that the evidence-base for MBIs for CMDs in the acute phase is weak.

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 · 10.1017/s0033291718000259

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • In a meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials for generalized anxiety disorder symptoms, mindfulness-based interventions had lower post-intervention symptoms than nonactive controls in all studies except one, with g = -0.65 (95% CI -0.97 to -0.32).

    “in one meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for GAD symptoms [57], compared with nonactive controls (including no treatment, open trials, education, TAU), MBIs had lower post-intervention symptoms in all studies except one (g = −0.65, 95% CI [−0.97, −0.32]) [58].”

    From Psychotherapeutic treatments for generalized anxiety disorder: cognitive and behavioral therapies, enhancement strategies, and emerging efforts (2022) · cites this paper as [57]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 16

  1. Asmaee Majid S, Seghatoleslam T, Homan H, Akhvast A and Habil H (2012) Effect of mindfulness based stress management on reduction of gen- eralized anxiety disorder. Iranian Journal of Public Health 41, 24-28.
  2. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64, 401-406.
  3. Bränström R, Kvillemo P and Moskowitz JT (2012) A randomized study of the effects of mindfulness training on psychological well-being and symp- toms of stress in patients treated for cancer at 6-month follow-up. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 19, 535-542.
  4. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M and Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal 315, 629-634.
  5. Hedges LV (1982) Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological Bulletin 92, 490-499.
  6. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al. Cochrane Bias Methods, G., Cochrane Statistical Methods, G. (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. British Medical Journal 343, d5928.
  7. Hoge EA, Bui E, Marques L, Metcalf CA, Morris LK, Robinaugh DJ et al. (2013) Randomized controlled trial of mindfulness meditation for general- ized anxiety disorder: effects on anxiety and stress reactivity. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 74, 786-792.
  8. Lenz AS, Hall J and Bailey Smith L (2016) Meta-analysis of group mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for decreasing symptoms of acute depression. Journal for Specialists in Group Work 41, 44-70.
  9. Lipsey MW and Wilson D (2001) Practical Meta-Analysis. London: SAGE.
  10. Michalak J, Schultze M, Heidenreich T and Schramm E (2015) A rando- mized controlled trial on the efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive ther- apy and a group version of cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy for chronically depressed patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 83, 951-963.
  11. Öst L-G, Riise EN, Wergeland GJ, Hansen B and Kvale G (2016) Cognitive behavioral and pharmacological treatments of OCD in children: a system- atic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 43, 58-69.
  12. Owens DK, Lohr KN, Atkins D, Treadwell JR, Reston JT, Bass EB et al. (2010) AHRQ series paper 5: grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions -agency for healthcare research and quality and the effective health-care program. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 63, 513-523.
  13. Plank K (2010) Mindful medicine: the growing trend of mindfulness-based therapies in the Swedish health care system. Finnish Journal of Ethnicity and Migration 5, 47-55.
  14. Southam-Gerow MA and Prinstein MJ (2014) Evidence base updates: the evolution of the evaluation of psychological treatments for children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 43, 1-6.
  15. Sundquist J, Lilja A, Palmer K, Memon AA, Wang X, Johansson LM et al. (2015) Mindfulness group therapy in primary care patients with depression, anxiety and stress and adjustment disorders: randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry 206, 128-135.
  16. Wahbeh H, Goodrich E, Goy E and Oken BS (2016) Mechanistic pathways of mindfulness meditation in combat veterans With posttraumatic stress dis- order. Journal of Clinical Psychology 72, 365-383.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hedman-Lagerlöf, M., Hedman-Lagerlöf, E., & Öst, L.-G.
Affiliations
Stockholm University (SE)
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2018-02-19
Volume
48
Issue
13
Pages
2116-2129
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2793902959
Cited by
61
References
40
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4
FWCI
1.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Stockholms Läns Landsting
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mindfulness-based interventions, common mental disorders, acute phase treatment, evidence base, treatment effectiveness, methodological quality, risk of bias, publication bias, mental illness
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 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