Cited by 291Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDiabetes Management and EducationCancer survivorship and care

Kindness matters: a randomized controlled trial of a mindful self-compassion intervention improves depression, distress, and HbA1c among patients with diabetes

Friis, Anna M., Johnson, Malcolm H., Cutfield, Richard G., Consedine, Nathan S.·2016·Diabetes Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Mood difficulties are common among patients with diabetes and are linked to poor blood glucose control and increased complications. Evidence on psychological treatments that improve both mood and metabolic outcomes is limited. Greater self-compassion predicts better mental and physical health in both healthy and chronically ill populations. Thus, the purpose of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the effects of self-compassion training on mood and metabolic outcomes among patients with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This RCT tested the effects of a standardized 8-week mindful self-compassion (MSC) program (n = 32) relative to a wait-list control condition (n = 31) among patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Measures of self-compassion, depressive symptoms, diabetes-specific distress, and HbA1c were taken at baseline (preintervention), at week 8 (postintervention), and at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS Repeated-measures ANOVA using intention to treat showed that MSC training increased self-compassion and produced statistically and clinically significant reductions in depression and diabetes distress in the intervention group, with results maintained at 3-month follow-up. MSC participants also averaged a clinically and statistically meaningful decrease in HbA1c between baseline and follow-up of >10 mmol/mol (nearly 1%). There were no overall changes for the wait-list control group. CONCLUSIONS This initial report suggests that learning to be kinder to oneself (rather than being harshly self-critical) may have both emotional and metabolic benefits among patients with diabetes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/dc16-0416

Cites

39 of 39 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

2 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friis, A. M., Johnson, M. H., Cutfield, R. G., & Consedine, N. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Waitemata District Health Board (NZ)
Corresponding author
Friis, Anna M.
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
2016-06-22
Volume
39
Issue
11
Pages
1963-1971
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W2465180286
Cited by
291
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 3
FWCI
25.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
mindful self-compassion, self-compassion, depression, diabetes distress, HbA1c, glycemic control, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, mood, psychological intervention, self-criticism
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Depression, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Empathy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Mindfulness

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