Cited by 21Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure

Mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy to treat multiple chemical sensitivities: A randomized pilot trial

SKOVBJERG, S., HAUGE, C. R., RASMUSSEN, A., WINKEL, P., ELBERLING, J.·2012·Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

Abstract

Skovbjerg, S., Hauge, C. R., Rasmussen, A., Winkel, P. & Elberling, J. (2012). Mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy to treat multiple chemical sensitivities: A randomized pilot trial. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53, 233–238. Multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) is a medically unexplained and socially disabling disorder characterized by negative health effects attributed to exposure to common airborne chemicals. Currently, there is no evidence‐based treatment. The objectives of the study were to assess the feasibility of an 8‐week mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy program (MBCT) for adults with MCS and to evaluate possible effects on psychological distress and illness perception. The study design was a randomized clinical trial. The MBCT programme comprised 8 weekly sessions of 2½ hours. Forty‐two adults were screened for eligibility and 37 were included. Mean age of the participants was 51.6 years, 35 (94.6%) were female and 21 (56.8%) were unemployed. Measures of psychological distress and illness perceptions were assessed at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and at 3 months follow‐up. No significant differences in effect measures were found between the groups. However, those who completed the MBCT program generally reported benefiting in terms of improved coping strategies and sleep quality. The positive verbal feedback from the participants in the MBCT group suggests that a larger randomized clinical trial on the effect of MBCT for MCS could be considered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00950.x

Cites

42 of 42 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
SKOVBJERG, S., HAUGE, C. R., RASMUSSEN, A., WINKEL, P., & ELBERLING, J.
Affiliations
  • Gentofte Hospital (DK)
  • Bispebjerg Hospital (DK)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
SKOVBJERG, S.
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-04-25
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
233-238
ISSN
  • 0036-5564 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9450
OpenAlex
W2112198153
Cited by
21
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Keywords
multiple chemical sensitivity, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, psychological distress, illness perception, coping strategies, sleep quality, treatment feasibility, medically unexplained symptoms
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Denmark, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Psychotherapy, Group, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Self Report

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