Cited by 116Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDigital Mental Health InterventionsReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Group, one-on-one, or internet? Preferences for mindfulness meditation delivery format and their predictors

Open access
Wahbeh, Helané, Svalina, Matthew N., Oken, Barry S.·2014·Open Medicine Journal

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Group mindfulness meditation interventions have improved symptoms in many health conditions. However, many people are unwilling to receive group treatment, so alternative delivery methods such as individual and internet may be a useful option. The study objective was to examine mindfulness meditation intervention delivery format preferences and their relationship to potential predictors. DESIGN: An online survey was conducted of adult English speakers. Data was collected on interest and preference for internet, individual, or group formats of a mindfulness meditation intervention. Age, gender, personality, and posttraumatic stress disorder score and status and depression status were also collected. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 500 eligible participants completed the survey (mean age 39±15; range 18-70; 68% female). Participants were more interested in the Internet (n=356) and individual formats (n=384) than the group format (n=245). Fifty-five participants (11%) said they would refuse a group format. Internet was the first choice format for most participants (Internet 212 (43%), Individual 187 (38%), Group 97 (20%) and group was the last choice for most participants (Internet 140 (29%), Individual 70 (14%), Group 279 (57%)). Age, extraversion and emotional stability were significant in predicting first choice format. These results support the need for more research and implementation of alternative mindfulness meditation intervention delivery formats. Future research will incorporate additional predictors and include a broader range of participants.

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 · 10.2174/1874220301401010066

Cites

52 of 52 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wahbeh, H., Svalina, M. N., & Oken, B. S.
Affiliations
  • National University of Natural Medicine (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Venue
Open Medicine Journal
Published
2014-11-28
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
66-74
ISSN
1874-2203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2033588586
Cited by
116
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7
FWCI
4.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Open Medicine Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (K24AT005121, K01AT004951)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
mindfulness meditation, intervention delivery format, group intervention, individual interventions, online intervention, treatment preferences, extraversion, emotional stability, personality traits, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, age differences

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