Cited by 56Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDigital Mental Health InterventionsTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Systematic review of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction via group videoconferencing: feasibility, acceptability, safety, and efficacy

Open access
Moulton-Perkins, Alesia, Moulton, Duncan, Cavanagh, Kate, Jozavi, Alex, Strauss, Clara·2022·Journal of Psychotherapy Integration

Abstract

Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) are effective in reducing distress among people with physical or mental health problems. However, implementation is limited by variable geographic provision, ability to travel, and the need for remote service delivery during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis. Integration with Internet-enabled technologies like videoconferencing potentially enhances access. This article reports a systematic review exploring the feasibility, acceptability, safety, and efficacy of delivering MBCT/MBSR by videoconferencing (MBCT/MBSR-VC). No restrictions were made about population or study design. Eleven online databases were searched and 10 studies met inclusion criteria. Narrative synthesis was used because of study heterogeneity. Articles featured physical health and nonclinical samples, but not mental health. Three studies had moderate-strong methodological quality. Results supported the feasibility and acceptability of MBCT/MBSR-VC. Considerations of safety were largely unreported. MBCT/MBSR-VC demonstrated medium positive effects on mental health outcomes compared with inactive controls (ds = 0.44–0.71), and little difference compared with active controls like in-person delivery (all confidence intervals crossed zero). Evidence regarding mindfulness or selfcompassion as potential mechanisms of action was inconclusive. Future implementation research should target mental health populations using noninferiority designs. Adapting MBCT/MBSR to remote delivery will require development of guidelines and training packages to ensure best practice in this medium and adherence to evidence-based MBCT/MBSR models

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/int0000216

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moulton-Perkins, A., Moulton, D., Cavanagh, K., Jozavi, A., & Strauss, C.
Venue
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration
Published
2022-03
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
110-130
ISSN
  • 1053-0479 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3696
OpenAlex
W3085683225
Cited by
56
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Psychotherapy Integration (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, mindfulness-based stress reduction, videoconferencing, remote delivery, telemedicine, feasibility, acceptability, safety, efficacy, mental health outcomes, self-compassion, mechanism of action, COVID-19 pandemic

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