Background There is an urgent need for mental health promotion in nonclinical settings. Mindfulness–based programmes (MBPs) are being widely implemented to reduce stress, but a comprehensive evidence synthesis is lacking. We reviewed trials to assess whether MBPs promote mental health relative to no intervention or comparator interventions. Methods and findings Following a detailed preregistered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42018105213) developed with public and professional stakeholders, 13 databases were searched to August 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining in–person, expert–defined MBPs in nonclinical settings. Two researchers independently selected, extracted, and appraised trials using the Cochrane Risk–of–Bias Tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were psychometrically validated anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and mental well–being questionnaires at 1 to 6 months after programme completion. Multiple testing was performed using p < 0.0125 (Bonferroni) for statistical significance. Secondary outcomes, meta–regression and sensitivity analyses were prespecified. Pairwise random–effects multivariate meta–analyses and prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated. A total of 11,605 participants in 136 trials were included (29 countries, 77% women, age range 18 to 73 years). Compared with no intervention, in most but not all scenarios MBPs improved average anxiety (8 trials; standardised mean difference (SMD) = −0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.80 to −0.33; p–value < 0.001; 95% PI −1.19 to 0.06), depression (14 trials; SMD = −0.53; 95% CI −0.72 to −0.34; p–value < 0.001; 95% PI −1.14 to 0.07), distress (27 trials; SMD = −0.45; 95% CI −0.58 to −0.31; p–value < 0.001; 95% PI −1.04 to 0.14), and well–being (9 trials; SMD = 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54; p–value = 0.003; 95% PI −0.29 to 0.94). Compared with nonspecific active control conditions, in most but not all scenarios MBPs improved average depression (6 trials; SMD = −0.46; 95% CI −0.81 to −0.10; p–value = 0.012, 95% PI −1.57 to 0.66), with no statistically significant evidence for improving anxiety or distress and no reliable data on well–being. Compared with specific active control conditions, there is no statistically significant evidence of MBPs’ superiority. Only effects on distress remained when higher–risk trials were excluded. USA–based trials reported smaller effects. MBPs targeted at higher–risk populations had larger effects than universal MBPs. The main limitation of this review is that confidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is moderate to very low, mainly due to inconsistency and high risk of bias in many trials. Conclusions Compared with taking no action, MBPs of the included studies promote mental health in nonclinical settings, but given the heterogeneity between studies, the findings do not support generalisation of MBP effects across every setting. MBPs may have specific effects on some common mental health symptoms. Other preventative interventions may be equally effective. Implementation of MBPs in nonclinical settings should be partnered with thorough research to confirm findings and learn which settings are most likely to benefit.

No abstract

assessing the e icacy of antidepressants by type, class and dose in improving pain, mood, patient global impression of change, physical functioning, sleep quality and quality of life;• assessing the number of adverse events of antidepressants by type, class and dose; • ranking antidepressants in the e icacy of treating pain, mood and adverse events.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:To assess the comparative e icacy and safety of antidepressants for adults with chronic pain. We will achieve this by:• assessing the e icacy of antidepressants by type, class and dose in improving pain, mood, patient global impression of change, physical functioning, sleep quality and quality of life; • assessing the number of adverse events of antidepressants by type, class and dose; • ranking antidepressants in the e icacy of treating pain, mood and adverse events.Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis (Protocol)

Mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) are widely used to prevent mental ill health. Evidence suggests beneficial average effects but wide variability. We aimed to confirm the effect of MBPs and to understand whether and how baseline distress, gender, age, education, and dispositional mindfulness modify the effect of MBPs on distress among adults in non-clinical settings. We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42020200117). Databases were searched in December 2020 for randomized controlled trials satisfying a quality threshold and comparing in-person, expert-defined MBPs with passive-control groups. Two researchers independently selected, extracted and appraised trials using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. IPD of eligible trials were sought from authors. The primary outcome was psychological distress (unpleasant mental or emotional experiences including anxiety and depression) at 1 to 6 months after program completion. Data were checked and imputed if missing. Pairwise, random-effects, two-stage IPD meta-analyses were conducted. Effect modification analyses followed a within-studies approach. Stakeholders were involved throughout this study. Fifteen trials were eligible; 13 trialists shared IPD (2,371 participants representing 8 countries. In comparison with passive-control groups, MBPs reduced average distress between 1 and 6 months post-intervention with a small to moderate effect size (standardized mean difference, −0.32; 95% confidence interval, −0.41 to −0.24; P < 0.001; no heterogeneity). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses and similar for the other timepoint ranges. Confidence in the primary outcome result is high. We found no clear indication that this effect is modified by the pre-specified candidates. Group-based teacher-led MBPs generally reduce psychological distress among volunteering community adults. More research is needed to identify sources of variability in outcomes at an individual level.