The Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Primary Care: A Meta-Analytic Review.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to investigate the application and efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in primary care patients.
Results Summary
The meta-analysis found moderate overall effects of MBIs on general health (g = 0.48), with significant improvements in mental health (g = 0.56) and quality of life (g = 0.29). Heterogeneity varied across outcomes, but no publication bias was detected.
Population
Adult patients recruited from primary care settings (total n = 553 across 6 trials).
Effective Dosage
Not specified
Duration
Not specified
Interactions
None mentioned
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | increase | general health | adult patients recruited from primary care settings | g = 0.48 | improving general health | #1 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | increase | mental health | adult patients recruited from primary care settings | g = 0.56 | improving mental health | #2 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | increase | quality of life | adult patients recruited from primary care settings | g = 0.29 | improving quality of life | #3 |
PURPOSE: Positive effects have been reported after mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in diverse clinical and nonclinical populations. Primary care is a key health care setting for addressing common chronic conditions, and an effective MBI designed for this setting could benefit countless people worldwide. Meta-analyses of MBIs have become popular, but little is known about their efficacy in primary care. Our aim was to investigate the application and efficacy of MBIs that address primary care patients. METHODS: We performed a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials addressing the effect of MBIs in adult patients recruited from primary care settings. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. Effect sizes were calculated with the Hedges g in random effects models. RESULTS: The meta-analyses were based on 6 trials having a total of 553 patients. The overall effect size of MBI compared with a control condition for improving general health was moderate (g = 0.48; P = .002), with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 59; P <.05). We found no indication of publication bias in the overall estimates. MBIs were efficacious for improving mental health (g = 0.56; P = .007), with a high heterogeneity (I(2) = 78; P <.01), and for improving quality of life (g = 0.29; P = .002), with a low heterogeneity (I(2) = 0; P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of randomized controlled trials applying MBIs in primary care is still limited, our results suggest that these interventions are promising for the mental health and quality of life of primary care patients. We discuss innovative approaches for implementing MBIs, such as complex intervention and stepped care.