Cited by 19Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDigital Mental Health InterventionsInflammatory Bowel Disease

Online Mindfulness Intervention for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Adherence and Efficacy

Open access
Forbes, Leila, Johnson, Susan K.·2022·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

The impact of stress and other psychological variables on Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) prognosis, treatment response, and functional level is well-established; however, typical IBD treatment focuses on the physiological pathology of the disease and neglects complementary stress-reducing interventions. Recent pilot studies report the benefits of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in people living with IBD, but are limited by small sample sizes. Recruitment challenges to in-person studies may be in part due to the difficulty IBD patients often have adhering to fixed schedules and travel as a result of IBD symptoms such as pain, fatigue, and incontinence. The current study aimed to address this barrier by offering participants access to online mindfulness training, allowing individuals to engage with intervention materials to fit their own schedule. Online mindfulness programs have gained popularity in recent years, as they increase access and flexibility and decrease cost to the user; however, the dropout rate tends to be high. The current study compared the rate of adherence and efficacy of mindfulness training as a function of level of support: self-guided versus supported. Analysis revealed no significant difference in the benefits received between participants in the two groups; however, a significant difference group (χ 2 = 15.75; p = 0.000, r = 0.38) was found in terms of rate of completion, with 44.1% of the supportive group completing the protocol compared to 11.7% of the self-guided. Common challenges to meditation were measured, but did not significantly predict adherence to the intervention, and experience of these challenges did not significantly change (increase or decrease) over the duration of the study. Implications of the current research, future directions for the use of MBI for IBD patients, and a discussion of methodological considerations are provided.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.709899

Cites

100 of 100 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?

  • The rationale for online blended delivery of psychological interventions is to bridge barriers to accessing psychological support such as unpredictable symptoms and lack of resources including appropriately trained staff.

    “The rationale for online blended delivery of psychological interventions, such as those in the current study, is to bridge barriers to accessing psychological support such as unpredictable symptoms and lack of resources including appropriately trained staff (Dober et al., 2021; Forbes & Johnson, 2021; Mikocka-Walus et al., 2020).”

    From Moving Towards Acceptance and Values: A Qualitative Study of ACTforIBD Compared to IBD Psychoeducation (2024) · cites this paper as Forbes & Johnson, 2021

    The Introduction’s “Online Interventions” section and the Discussion’s “Intervention Completion” section say online delivery can help people with IBD overcome barriers to face-to-face support, including unpredictable symptoms, and the paper examines online delivery with added support. The paper does not identify a shortage of appropriately trained staff as a barrier that this approach addresses; it discusses cost, physical limitations, and symptoms instead. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Forbes, L., & Johnson, S. K.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
Corresponding author
Forbes, Leila
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2022-03-24
Volume
12
Pages
709899-709899
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4221063253
Cited by
18
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Keywords
inflammatory bowel disease, mindfulness-based interventions, intervention adherence, dropout, stress reduction, complementary therapy

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