Cited by 21Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

Mindfulness interventions for craving reduction in substance use disorders and behavioral addictions: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Open access
Demina, Anastasia, Petit, Benjamin, Meille, Vincent, Trojak, Benoit·2023·BMC Neuroscience

Abstract

Background: High-quality evidence is still required to affirm the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in craving reduction. MBIs may be particularly appropriate for this purpose given the neurobiological mechanisms of addiction with automatic behavior in response to the negative affect. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to study the efficacy of MBIs in craving reduction and to synthetize the newly published data. Methods: We searched four databases and three clinical trial registries for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to August 2023, including studies with MBIs in all types of substance use disorders or behavioral addictions. We chose as our outcome of interest the change from the baseline of craving measures at posttreatment. Standardized mean difference was used as an effect size estimator. Results: We included 17 RCTs with 1228 participants. The overall effect size was estimated at -0.70 (95% CI -1.15, -0.26) in favor of MBIs. Conclusion: Due to the high inconsistency ( I 2 = 92%), we were unable to conclude that there is a medium to large effect size. Overall risk of bias was high for most studies, and the GRADE approach detected a low quality of evidence. Previous clinical and fundamental research suggest that MBIs have a promising potential in addiction medicine. However, further investigation of whether MBIs effectively reduce craving is needed, and innovative solutions for resolving methodological limitations in MBI research are warranted. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration ID CRD42020221141.

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 · 10.1186/s12868-023-00821-4

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • Meta-analyses indicate small-to-large effects of mindfulness interventions in reducing frequency and severity of substance use, intensity of drug craving and severity of experienced stress, and improving mental health.

    “Meta-analyses of mindfulness intervention studies indicate small-to-large effects of mindfulness interventions in reducing frequency and severity of substance use, intensity of drug craving and severity of experienced stress, and improving mental health [22–24].”

    From Mindful moms: acceptability and impact of co-designed and digitally delivered video meditations for pregnant and parenting women with opioid use disorder (2025) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Results section (‘Effect of mindfulness interventions on craving’; page not provided) reports a medium-to-large effect on craving reduction (Cohen’s d = −0.70), supporting the drug-craving part of the sentence. This meta-analysis does not establish the claimed effects on substance-use frequency or severity, experienced stress, or mental health; its Discussion also cautions that high inconsistency makes the craving result difficult to interpret. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A sub-group analysis from a recent meta-analysis reported a moderate effect size (Cohen's d of −0.59) for MBRP in reducing cravings.

    “A sub‐group analysis from a recent meta‐analysis reported a moderate effect size (Cohen's d of −0.59) for MBRP in reducing cravings [23].”

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

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [41]Review Manager (RevMan). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2020.
  2. [44]Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral Sciences. 0 ed. Routledge; 1977.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Demina, A., Petit, B., Meille, V., & Trojak, B.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • CHU Dijon Bourgogne (FR)
Corresponding author
Demina, Anastasia
Venue
BMC Neuroscience
Published
2023-10-18
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
55-55
ISSN
1471-2202 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387739422
Cited by
20
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
mindfulness-based interventions, craving reduction, substance use disorders, behavioral addiction, addiction treatment, negative affect, automatism, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Behavior, Addictive, Substance-Related Disorders, Mindfulness, Craving

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