CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 316Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Brief mindfulness training for negative affectivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Open access
Schumer, Maya C., Lindsay, Emily K., Creswell, J. David·2018·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1037/ccp0000324PMC PMC6441958
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Over the last 10 years, there has been a dramatic increase in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of brief mindfulness training (from single-session inductions to multisession interventions lasting up to 2 weeks), with some preliminary indications that these training programs may improve mental health outcomes, such as negative affectivity. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether brief mindfulness training reliably reduces negative affectivity. METHOD: PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Mindfulness Research Monthly Newsletter were systematically searched for brief mindfulness intervention RCTs assessing negative affectivity outcomes (e.g., depression, rumination, anxiety, stress). Sixty-five RCTs, including 5,489 participants predominantly without experience in meditation (64.64% female, mean age = 24.62), qualified for the meta-analytic review. RESULTS: The meta-analysis revealed a small but significant effect of brief mindfulness training on reducing negative affectivity compared to control programs (g = .21, p < .001). The overall effect size was significantly moderated by participant characteristics: community samples (g = .41, p < .001) produced larger training effects compared to student samples (g = .14, p = .001; Qbetween p = .03). No significant effect size differences were found between clinical and nonclinical samples. However, when accounting for publication bias, the overall effect size of brief mindfulness training programs on negative affectivity was significantly reduced (g = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Brief mindfulness training programs are increasingly popular approaches for reducing negative affectivity. This meta-analysis indicates that brief mindfulness training modestly reduces negative affectivity. Quantitative analyses indicated the presence of publication bias (i.e., unpublished null effect studies), highlighting the need to continue rigorous evaluation of brief mindfulness interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ccp0000324

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 40 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Community samples show larger brief mindfulness training effects on negative affectivity than student samples (community g=.41, p<.001; student g=.14, p=.001; Qbetween p=.03).

    “The overall effect size was significantly moderated by participant characteristics: community samples (g=.41, p<.001) produced larger training effects compared to student samples (g=.14, p=.001) (Qbetween p=.03).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    When publication bias is taken into account, the overall effect size of brief mindfulness training on negative affectivity is significantly reduced to g=.04.

    “However, when accounting for publication bias, the overall effect size of brief mindfulness training programs on negative affectivity was significantly reduced (g=.04).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Brief mindfulness training, compared with control programs, produces a small but statistically significant reduction in negative affectivity (g=.21, p<.001).

    “The meta-analysis revealed a small but significant effect of brief mindfulness training on reducing negative affectivity compared to control programs (g=.21, p<.001).”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusions: · hedged
      “This meta-analysis indicates that brief mindfulness training modestly reduces negative affectivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The meta-analysis found evidence of publication bias, specifically unpublished null-effect studies, in the brief mindfulness training literature.

    “Quantitative analyses indicated the presence of publication bias (i.e., unpublished null effect studies), highlighting the need to continue rigorous evaluation of brief mindfulness interventions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Clinical and non-clinical samples do not differ significantly in the effect size of brief mindfulness training on negative affectivity.

    “No significant effect size differences were found between clinical and non-clinical samples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 28

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Training length was not a significant moderator of the brief mindfulness effect; one-session interventions had g=.22 and longer ones g=.12.

    “Contrary to predictions, length of training (i.e., whether the mindfulness intervention was one session (g=.22) or longer (g=.12)) did not significantly moderate brief mindfulness intervention effects”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
      “Surprisingly, this meta-analysis did not indicate that training duration (which ranged from one session to two weeks of mindfulness training) moderated the overall effect; instead, very brief mindfulness interventions had comparable effects to multi-day brief mindfulness interventions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The meta-analysis included 65 independent randomized controlled trials with 5,489 participants.

    “5,489 individuals participated in the N=65 independent RCT studies”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Outcome assessment timing was not a significant moderator of the overall effect; immediate post-intervention outcomes had g=.29, later same-day outcomes g=.18, and outcomes at 1 day or longer g=.08.

    “The timing of outcome assessment did not significantly moderate the overall effect (see Table 1a), although effect sizes tended to decrease over time. Outcomes assessed immediately post-intervention showed the largest effect (g=.29), followed by those assessed later that same day (g=.18), and outcomes assessed 1 day or longer post-intervention showed very small effects (g=.08)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most negative affectivity measures in this review were self-reports (91), few were performance-based (2), and most outcomes captured state-level change (68).

    “In this review, negative affectivity was measured most often via self-report (91 measures) and less often via performance-based measures (2 measures), with the majority of outcomes assessing state-level negative affectivity changes (68 outcomes)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Within these studies, distress-paradigm timing was not a significant moderator of the overall effect; before g=.26, after g=.26, both before and after g=.29, and during the intervention g=.15.

    “Within the 46 negative affect reactivity studies, the timing of the distress paradigm in relation to mindfulness training did not significantly moderate the overall effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The trials were conducted in 14 countries; the United States was the most frequent setting (N=33).

    “Studies were drawn from 14 countries, with the United States as the most common setting (N=33).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Clinical status was not a significant moderator of the overall mindfulness effect on negative affectivity, though clinical groups had somewhat larger effects (g=.33) than nonclinical groups (g=.19).

    “While clinical status did not significantly moderate the overall effect of mindfulness interventions on negative affectivity, clinical populations showed modestly larger effect sizes (g=.33) than nonclinical populations (g=.19)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    State versus trait measurement of negative affectivity was not a significant moderator of the overall effect; state measures had g=.23 and trait measures g=.14.

    “Second, whether an outcome measured state or trait negative affectivity did not significantly moderate the overall brief mindfulness training effect (see Table 1a), although state measures (g=.23) produced somewhat larger training effects than trait measures (g=.14).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Control type did not significantly moderate the overall effect; active comparison programs had g=.17 and no-training controls had g=.42.

    “The type of control program (active comparison programs: g=.17; no-training: g=.42) did not significantly moderate the overall effect of mindfulness interventions on negative affectivity, although these effect sizes suggest a smaller overall effect of mindfulness training when compared to other active programs”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants in the included trials had a mean age of 24.62 years, with a standard deviation of 7.77.

    “these participants had an average age of 24.62 years (SD=7.77)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Population type was a significant moderator of the overall negative affectivity effect (Qbetween p=.03); community samples showed larger effects (g=.40) than students (g=.14).

    “Consistent with predictions, the study population type significantly moderated the overall negative affectivity effect (Qbetween p=.03). Specifically, community samples (g=.40) had larger mindfulness intervention effects on reducing negative affectivity relative to student samples (g=.14)”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
      “this meta-analysis indicates that brief mindfulness training programs had significantly larger negative affectivity reduction effects among community adult populations compared to college students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The smallest trial had 17 participants and the largest 411, with a mean of 84.

    “Sample sizes ranged from 17 to 411 participants, and the average sample size was 84 participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Begg's rank correlation test found a significant link between sample size and observed effect size for negative affectivity outcomes (Kendall's τ=.40, p<.001), suggesting publication bias risk.

    “Begg’s rank correlation test (Begg & Mazumdar, 1994) indicated a significant association between sample size and observed effect size for studies with negative affectivity outcomes (Kendall’s τ = .40, p <.001), indicating a risk for publication bias in this brief mindfulness training literature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Begg & Mazumdar, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Trim-and-fill analysis estimated no missing studies on the right side and 18 missing study effect sizes on the left side.

    “The trim-and-fill analysis indicated no studies to be missing on the right side (positive mindfulness training effects) whereas 18 study effect sizes were estimated to be missing on the left side (negative or null mindfulness training effects)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Duval & Tweedie, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most participants were nonclinical (N=4,757), while fewer had clinical diagnoses (N=732).

    “Most participants in these studies were categorized as nonclinical (N=4,757) and fewer had clinical diagnoses (N=732).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among community samples, study quality was a significant moderator (β=.26, p=.03), with higher-quality studies showing larger effects; among student samples, it was not.

    “However, within studies using community samples, study quality did moderate the mindfulness training effect (β=.26, p=.03), such that higher quality studies produced larger mindfulness training effects on negative affectivity (see Table 1d); in studies using student samples, study quality was not a significant moderator.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Nearly all outcomes were self-reported; only two used performance-based measures.

    “Second, most outcomes were self-reported (except two that were performance-based)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Among the 35 trials that reported ethnicity, 68.97% of the 3,697 participants were Caucasian.

    “Of the 35 RCTs reporting ethnicity (3,697 participants), 68.97% were Caucasian.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When the missing negative-effect studies were filled in, the estimated effect of brief mindfulness on negative affectivity became much smaller and was not significantly different from zero (adjusted Hedges' g=.04, 95% CI [−.01,.09]).

    “By filling in these missing negative effect studies, the trim-and-fill analysis estimates the brief mindfulness training effect size on negative affectivity outcomes to be much more modest and not significantly different from zero (adjusted effect size of training on negative affectivity for potentially missing studies: Hedges’ g=.04 [−.01, .09]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The number of randomized controlled trials of mindfulness interventions has grown exponentially in recent years.

    “There has been an exponential increase in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mindfulness interventions in recent years (Creswell, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Creswell, 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Published studies of brief mindfulness interventions have surged, covering single-session inductions through multi-session programs of two weeks or less.

    “there has also been a surge of published studies describing brief mindfulness interventions, from single-session inductions to multi-session training programs lasting two weeks or less (e.g., Zeidan et al., 2010a, b; Creswell et al., 2014; see Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Zeidan et al., 2010a, b

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Creswell et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Under stress-buffering theory, mindfulness could work better when stress is high and there is greater scope for improvement.

    “This expectation borrows logic from the stress-buffering theory; mindfulness may be more effective for lowering negative affectivity in high stress contexts where there is more room for intervention-related improvement (Arch & Craske, 2006; Creswell & Lindsay, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Arch & Craske, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Creswell & Lindsay, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Brief training approaches, such as smartphone applications and internet-streamed audio, are becoming increasingly popular worldwide.

    “brief training approaches (via downloadable Smartphone mindfulness applications or internet streamed audios, for example) are increasingly popular worldwide (Creswell, 2017; Wahbeh, Svalina, & Oken, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Creswell, 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wahbeh, Svalina, & Oken, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Meta-analytic reviews of longer-term mindfulness training programs such as MBSR show that these programs reliably reduce negative affectivity relative to control groups.

    “While there have been numerous meta-analytic reviews of longer-term mindfulness training programs (e.g., MBSR) showing that these programs reliably reduce negative affectivity compared to control groups (see Khoury et al., 2015), there are no meta-analytic reviews evaluating the effects of brief mindfulness interventions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Khoury et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Earlier meta-analyses of longer-term mindfulness RCTs suggest that how long training lasts can moderate outcomes, with longer training yielding stronger effects.

    “Previous meta-analyses of longer-term mindfulness training RCTs indicate that intervention duration can moderate the effects of mindfulness training programs, with longer durations of training producing larger mindfulness effects (Khoury et al., 2015; Spijkerman, Pots, & Bohlmeijer, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Khoury et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Spijkerman, Pots, & Bohlmeijer, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Studies were included only if they randomly assigned participants to mindfulness or control conditions in a between-subjects design.

    “randomly assigned participants to a mindfulness or control condition and used a between-subjects design;”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In this literature, a Hedges' g near 0.2 is considered a small effect, near 0.5 medium, and near 0.8 large.

    “Effect sizes (g) were interpreted such that ~0.2 was a small effect, ~0.5 was a medium effect, and ~0.8 was a large effect (Cohen, 1988).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cohen, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    By lowering initial reactivity to threatening emotional stimuli, mindfulness may support emotion regulation and reduce the need for later recovery.

    “These results suggest that mindfulness may facilitate emotion regulation by reducing initial reactivity to emotionally threatening stimuli, which reduces the later need for recovery.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adding unpublished studies might lessen publication bias, but it can also bring other biases, such as methodological errors and unreviewed unreliable findings.

    “On the other hand, while including unpublished studies may reduce the risk of publication bias, their inclusion can introduce other sources of bias (Higgins & Green, 2011), including the possibility of critical methodological mistakes and unreliable results not addressed through peer-review (Chalmers et al., 1987).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Higgins & Green, 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Chalmers et al., 1987

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    Taken together, the review advises caution about using brief mindfulness programs to reduce negative affectivity because publication bias may be present.

    “Overall, this meta-analytic review suggests caution in implementing brief mindfulness training programs for reducing negative affectivity, given the potential presence of publication bias.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To limit reporting bias, the authors recorded every negative affectivity outcome named in a study's methods, regardless of whether results were reported.

    “In an effort to reduce reporting bias, all negative affectivity outcomes mentioned in the study’s methods section were included in the database, even if statistical results were not reported for that outcome.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Publication bias was evaluated using a rank correlation test, trim-and-fill methods, and funnel plots.

    “Publication bias was evaluated first with a rank correlation test (to test for publication bias in general), then by investigating the extent of publication bias with trim-and-fill methods, and finally by creating funnel plots to visualize the bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Each study had to report at least one measure that directly assessed negative affectivity.

    “included at least one outcome directly measuring negative affectivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines.

    “This meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Group, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Group, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The authors rated study quality with the Delphi list.

    “Study quality was assessed using the Delphi list criteria (Verhagen et al., 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Verhagen et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Mindfulness practice may lessen both the initial intensity of negative reactivity and later reactivity to that emotion, which could aid recovery.

    “The present meta-analysis supports and extends these findings, suggesting that mindfulness practice may reduce both the magnitude of initial negative reactivity and the ongoing reactivity toward that primary negative emotional experience (thus facilitating recovery).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Levin, Luoma, & Haeger, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Two independent coders checked several studies and reached 92.86% agreement.

    “coding reliability was established by two independent coders on several studies (coding agreement was 92.86%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Many people use brief mindfulness practices to manage negative affect.

    “Still, brief mindfulness practices are widely used for managing negative affect (Arch & Craske, 2006; Sears & Kraus, 2009; Vinci et al., 2014)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Arch & Craske, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sears & Kraus, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Vinci et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Self-report measures are vulnerable to many biases, partly because higher-order cognitive processes are hard to introspect accurately.

    “a method of data collection that is biased by many factors as it is difficult to introspect about higher-order cognitive processes (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nisbett & Wilson, 1977

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because most studies assessed outcomes immediately after training, they cannot show whether brief mindfulness has lasting effects on negative affectivity or daily functioning.

    “Third, the immediacy of post-training outcome assessments in most studies is not informative about the lasting effects – if any – of brief mindfulness training on negative affectivity and its impact on daily life functioning”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Studies were included only if they offered a primarily mindfulness meditation-based induction or intervention lasting no longer than two weeks and excluded compassion, lovingkindness, Zen, Buddhist meditation, or multi-component interventions.

    “offered a primarily mindfulness meditation-based induction or intervention that aimed to promote nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment (Creswell, 2017) and lasted no longer than 2 weeks2. Studies described as mindfulness-related interventions involving compassion, lovingkindness, Zen, or Buddhist meditation, or those that included mindfulness as part of a multi-component intervention (e.g.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    Because publication bias may be present, one should be cautious about concluding that brief mindfulness training reliably lowers negative affectivity.

    “Importantly, analyses also reveal the potential for publication bias in this meta-analysis (i.e., null results might not have been published), suggesting caution in inferring that brief mindfulness training programs reliably reduce negative affectivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because null-result brief mindfulness studies may remain unpublished, excluding unpublished studies could be seen as a limitation.

    “First, given the potential for unpublished brief mindfulness training studies with null results, our decision not to seek out and include unpublished studies could be viewed as a limitation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Primary studies were sought in PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Mindfulness Research Monthly Newsletter from February through May 2015.

    “The following databases were searched for primary studies between February and May of 2015: PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Mindfulness Research Monthly Newsletter (Black, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The authors wrote a protocol beforehand that set out the methods and inclusion rules.

    “Methods and inclusion criteria were specified in advance and documented in a study protocol by the authors of this review.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Studies were included only if no more than 5% of participants reported meditation experience.

    “included no more than 5% of participants who reported meditation experience (to assess the effects of brief mindfulness training in a primarily mindfulness-naïve population);”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Unpublished brief mindfulness studies may exist, and published studies are heterogeneous; together these point to important limits on when brief mindfulness training reduces negative affectivity.

    “The possible existence of numerous unpublished brief mindfulness training studies combined with the significant heterogeneity among published studies included in this meta-analysis suggests the likelihood of important boundary conditions on the putative benefits of brief mindfulness training programs on reducing negative affectivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Brief programs lasting up to two weeks probably produce short-lived rather than lasting reductions in negative affectivity, unlike longer 8-week programs that yield more durable benefits.

    “Thus, in contrast to more intensive 8-week mindfulness interventions that promote more stable benefits over time (e.g., Bowen et al., 2014; Kuyken et al., 2015), it’s likely that brief mindfulness interventions of up to two weeks have acute, but not long-term, benefits for reducing negative affectivity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bowen et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kuyken et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This low quality may stem from unclear reporting of study design features.

    “which may be attributed to a lack of clarity in reporting study design characteristics.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The review offers early hints about which groups may benefit most (community adults), which formats may help (programs with several mindfulness exercises), and which design choices (state measures) may matter for detecting benefits.

    “This meta-analysis provides some initial clues about populations that may particularly benefit (e.g., community adults), formats for brief mindfulness training (e.g., multiple types of mindfulness exercises in a single program), and study design approaches (e.g., measuring negative affectivity using state measures) that may be important for determining when we are likely to see benefits”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
50 of 50

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No meta-analytic reviews have evaluated the effects of brief mindfulness interventions.

    “there are no meta-analytic reviews evaluating the effects of brief mindfulness interventions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is unclear how reliable brief mindfulness effects are across studies and time.

    “Despite these promising indications, it is unclear how reliable these effects are across studies and time.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Negative affectivity is one of the most commonly measured outcomes in the mindfulness training literature.

    “Second, negative affectivity is one of the most commonly measured outcomes in the mindfulness training literature”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Negative affectivity is the most commonly measured outcome variable in the brief mindfulness interventions literature, to the authors' knowledge.

    “It is also the most commonly measured outcome variable (to our knowledge) in the brief mindfulness interventions literature.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Previous meta-analyses suggest that 8-week mindfulness-based interventions are equally effective for clinical and nonclinical populations.

    “although previous meta-analyses suggest that 8-week mindfulness-based interventions are equally effective for clinical (e.g., physical disease or mental disorder) and nonclinical populations”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Moderator analyses and meta-regressions would explain the heterogeneity across studies.

    “Given a statistically significant Q, we planned to run moderator analyses and meta-regressions under the assumption that they would explain the heterogeneity across studies.”
6 of 6

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?

  • Past reviews have demonstrated that stand-alone mindfulness practices produce change in outcomes relating to symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress with small-to-moderate effects.

    “Past reviews have demonstrated that stand-alone mindfulness practices produce change in outcomes relating to symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress with small-to-moderate effects.19 20”

    From Target mechanisms of mindfulness-based programmes and practices: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Methods (Search and Selection; page unavailable) exclude multicomponent interventions, and the Abstract (Method; page unavailable) lists depression, anxiety and stress among the negative-affectivity outcomes reviewed. The Results (Overall Effects on Negative Affectivity; page unavailable) report a small overall effect (g=.21), but not separate small-to-moderate effects for each named outcome. The Abstract (Results; page unavailable) also reports that the overall estimate fell to g=.04 after adjustment for publication bias. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • A meta-analysis including 65 randomized controlled trials showed that brief mindfulness interventions have an immediate and significant effect on reducing depression, stress, and anxiety in both nonclinical and clinical samples.

    “In fact, a meta-analysis including 65 randomized controlled trials showed that brief mindfulness interventions have an immediate and significant effect on reducing depression, stress, and anxiety in both nonclinical and clinical samples (64).”

    From Acceptance, experiences, and needs of hospitalized pregnant women toward an electronic mindfulness-based intervention: A pilot mixed-methods study (2022) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Abstract (Method) confirms that the meta-analysis included 65 RCTs assessing negative affectivity outcomes such as depression, stress, and anxiety. The Discussion reports an immediate, significant but small reduction in overall negative affectivity in nonclinical and clinical samples. It does not establish significant reductions for each named outcome separately, and cautions that the clinical-sample evidence is limited and subject to publication bias. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The 2-week intervention period was chosen based on past research that has demonstrated that this dosage of mindfulness can promote change in outcomes.

    “The 2-week intervention period was chosen based on past research that has demonstrated that this dosage of mindfulness can promote change in outcomes (Schumer et al., 2018).”

    From The State- and Trait-Level Effects and Candidate Mechanisms of Four Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) Practices: Two Exploratory Studies (2023) · cites this paper as Schumer et al., 2018

  • The finding of reduced perceived stress and anxiety is consistent with outcomes of mindfulness-based interventions in university students, including meta-analyses.

    “The finding of reduced perceived stress and anxiety is consistent with the outcomes of MBIs in the university student population. This includes a recent meta-analytic study investigating MBIs for university students (Dawson et al., 2020), and a meta-analytic study investigating brief mindfulness training for negative affectivity (Schumer et al., 2018).”

    From Feasibility of a Brief Online Mindfulness and Compassion-Based Intervention to Promote Mental Health Among University Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as Schumer et al., 2018

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Effect for community samples differs in the abstract and results

    Minor

    The abstract reports community samples as g=.41, while the results section gives g=.40 for the same moderator category. This is a small internal inconsistency in a key summary statistic.

  • 65 RCTs vs 63 papers inconsistent with 14 cognitive-outcome studies

    Minor

    The text says the meta-analysis included 65 RCTs from 63 published papers, but later says 14 out of 66 RCTs measured cognitive outcomes. The total number of RCTs cannot be both 65 and 66 within the same paper.

  • Review gives two totals for included trials

    Minor

    The discussion counts 66 RCTs in the review, whereas the methods state that 65 RCTs met the inclusion criteria.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 123 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schumer, M. C., Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Schumer, Maya C.
  • Creswell, J. David
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2018-07
Volume
86
Issue
7
Pages
569-583
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
DOI
10.1037/ccp0000324
PMC
PMC6441958
OpenAlex
W2810489028
Cited by
316
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 4
FWCI
24.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Carnegie Mellon University
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (F32AT009508, R21AT008493, R01AT008685)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
negative affectivity, mindfulness-based interventions, depression, rumination, anxiety, stress, publication bias, community sample, student samples
MeSH terms
Rumination, Cognitive, Anxiety, Depression, Humans, Stress, Psychological, Meditation, 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.

Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

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