The efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions in acute pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to determine the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) on acute pain outcomes, including pain severity, threshold, tolerance, and pain-related distress.
Results Summary
The study found no significant effect of MBIs on pain severity or pain-related distress in clinical or experimental settings, but there was moderate evidence for increased pain tolerance and weak evidence for improved pain threshold in experimental studies. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes.
Population
People with acute pain in clinical and experimental settings.
Effective Dosage
Not specified
Duration
Not specified
Interactions
None mentioned
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | no change | pain severity | clinical settings | Hedges' g = 0.52; (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.241 to 1.280) | no evidence of an effect | #1 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | no change | pain severity | experimental settings | Hedges' g = 0.04; 95% CI [-0.161 to 0.247] | no evidence of an effect | #2 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | increase | pain tolerance | experimental studies | Hedges' g = 0.68; 95% CI [0.157-1.282] | beneficial effect | #3 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | increase | pain threshold | experimental studies | Hedges' g = 0.72; 95% CI [0.210-1.154] | beneficial effect | #4 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | no change | pain-related distress | clinical settings | Hedges' g = 0.16; 95% CI [-0.018 to 0.419] | no evidence of an effect | #5 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | no change | pain-related distress | experimental settings | Hedges' g = 0.44; 95% CI [-0.164 to 0.419] | no evidence of an effect | #6 |
Recent meta-analyses have shown mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) to be effective for chronic pain, but no pooled estimates of the effect of MBIs on acute pain are available. This meta-analysis was conducted to fill that gap. A literature search was conducted in 4 databases. Articles were eligible if they reported on randomized controlled trials of MBIs for people with acute pain and one of the following outcomes: pain severity, pain threshold, pain tolerance, or pain-related distress. Two authors independently extracted the data, assessed risk of bias, and provided GRADE ratings. Twenty-two studies were included. There was no evidence of an effect of MBIs on the primary outcome of pain severity in clinical {Hedges' g = 0.52; (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.241 to 1.280)} or experimental settings (Hedges' g = 0.04; 95% CI [-0.161 to 0.247]). There was a beneficial effect of MBIs on pain tolerance (Hedges' g = 0.68; 95% CI [0.157-1.282]) and pain threshold (Hedges' g = 0.72; 95% CI [0.210-1.154]) in experimental studies. There was no evidence of an effect of MBIs compared to control for pain-related distress in clinical (Hedges' g = 0.16; 95% CI [-0.018 to 0.419]) or experimental settings (Hedges' g = 0.44; 95% CI [-0.164 to 0.419]). GRADE assessment indicated that except for pain tolerance, the data were of low or very low quality. There is moderate evidence that MBIs are efficacious in increasing pain tolerance and weak evidence for pain threshold. However, there is an absence of good-quality evidence for the efficacy of MBIs for reducing the pain severity or pain-related distress in either clinical or experimental settings.