Mindfulness meditation has become a successful treatment of both physical and psychosocial ailments over the past decade. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) are now implemented in various clinical and hospital settings for the treatment of stress, depression, substance abuse, and chronic pain. However, given mindfulness meditation’s exponential rise in popularity, scientific and media reports have called for the evaluation of mindfulness meditation’s safety for those who participate in its programs. Studies have described adverse events, such as anxiety and pain, and more severe events like psychosis, that have been associated with mindfulness meditation. However, there has not been a consistent, systematic way to define and report adverse events in meditation randomized control trials. The objective of our viewpoint was to dispel the notion that these emotive feelings and sensations are adverse events due to mindfulness meditation. Instead, they are actually expected reactions involved in the process of achieving the true benefits of mindfulness meditation. For the more severe outcomes of meditation, for example, psychosis and mania, these events are confounded by other factors, such as the intensity and length of the meditative practices as well as psychological stressors and the psychiatric histories of those affected. Comparatively, mindfulness-based programs like MBSR and MBCT are shorter in duration and less intense. They are designed to be adapted to their participants’ needs as to not induce pain or panic. Mindfulness meditation teaches its students to learn how to deal with their minds and bodies instead of using maladaptive coping techniques. Thus, we urge that further research in mindfulness meditation consistently use the definition of adverse events as those which lead to severe outcomes or hospitalization.

No abstract

No abstract

Background In 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) designated Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), an eight-week group program, as first-line non-pharmacological treatment for chronic low back pain. However, interprofessional collaboration between mindfulness instructors and Primary Care Providers (PCP) remains largely unknown. Objective We developed a survey to assess communication between mindfulness instructors and PCPs, identify predictors of referral to MBSR, and determine areas where interventions could increase patient access to MBSR. Methods The 25-question survey was sent via email to PCPs at the Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, PA, the Piedmont Health Services Family Medicine Section, Chapel Hill, NC, the Boston Medical Center General Internal Medicine and Family Medicine Sections, Boston, MA, and the UMass Memorial Medical Center Family Medicine Section, Worcester, MA. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression to analyze the data. Results Among 118 eligible respondents, 85 (72.0%) were female PCPs, mean age was approximately 41.5±10.1, and the majority (65.2%) had been in medical practice ≤10 years. Of these PCPs, 83 (70.1%) reported familiarity with MBSR (95% CI: 62.1, 78.5), and 49 (59.0%) of them referred patients at least yearly. Of those who referred, 8 (16.3%) reported collaboration with mindfulness instructors. PCPs who were quite a bit or very much familiar with MBSR had 5.10 (1.10, 22.50) times the odds (P=.03), and those who were 50 years or younger had 3.30 times the odds (P=.04) of referring patients to MBSR. Frequency of PCPs’ personal practice of mindfulness was not significantly associated with referrals (P=.30). Conclusion This is the first study to assess interprofessional collaboration between mindfulness instructors and PCPs. Suggestions for a potential integrative health care model are included; further studies on methods to augment communication and education are warranted to improve the referral process and ultimately increase accessibility and utilization of mindfulness-based programs.