Cited by 204Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchCancer survivorship and care

Pilot evaluation of a mindfulness-based intervention to improve quality of life among individuals who sustained traumatic brain injuries

BÉdard, Michel, Felteau, Melissa, Mazmanian, Dwight, Fedyk, Karilyn, Klein, Rupert, Richardson, Julie, Parkinson, William, Minthorn-Biggs, Mary-Beth·2003·Disability and Rehabilitation

Abstract

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To examine the potential efficacy of a mindfulness-based stress reduction approach to improve quality of life in individuals who have suffered traumatic brain injuries. RESEARCH DESIGN: Pre-post design with drop-outs as controls. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We recruited individuals with mild to moderate brain injuries, at least 1 year post-injury. We measured their quality of life, psychological status, and function. Results of 10 participants who completed the programme were compared to three drop-outs with complete data. EXPERIMENTAL INTERVENTION: The intervention was delivered in 12-weekly group sessions. The intervention relied on insight meditation, breathing exercises, guided visualization, and group discussion. We aimed to encourage a new way of thinking about disability and life to bring a sense of acceptance, allowing participants to move beyond limiting beliefs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The treatment group mean quality of life (SF-36) improved by 15.40 (SD = 9.08) compared to - 1.67 (SD = 16.65; p = 0.036) for controls. Improvements on the cognitive-affective domain of the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) were reported (p = 0.029), while changes in the overall BDI-II (p = 0.059) and the Positive Symptom Distress Inventory of the SCL-90R (p = 0.054) approached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was simple, and improved quality of life after other treatment avenues for these participants were exhausted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0963828031000090489

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
BÉdard, M., Felteau, M., Mazmanian, D., Fedyk, K., Klein, R., Richardson, J., Parkinson, W., & Minthorn-Biggs, M.-B.
Affiliations
  • Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital (CA)
  • Lakehead University (CA)
Venue
Disability and Rehabilitation
Published
2003-01
Volume
25
Issue
13
Pages
722-731
ISSN
  • 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5165
OpenAlex
W1969004293
Cited by
204
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 14
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Disability and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
mindfulness-based stress reduction, traumatic brain injury, quality of life, depression, psychological distress, acceptance, group intervention, insight meditation, guided imagery, breathing exercises, SF-36, Beck Depression Inventory-II, SCL-90-R
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain Injuries, Female, Holistic Health, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Relaxation Therapy, Stress, Psychological, Program Evaluation, Trauma Severity Indices

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