52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

Objective Mindfulness‐based interventions (MBIs) are increasingly used within psycho‐oncology. Since the publication of the most recent comprehensive meta‐analysis on MBIs in cancer in 2012, the number of published trials has more than doubled. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), testing the efficacy of MBIs on measures of psychological distress (primary outcome) and other health outcomes in cancer patients and survivors. Methods Two authors conducted independent literature searches in electronic databases from first available date to 10 October 2018, selected eligible studies, extracted data for meta‐analysis, and evaluated risk of bias. Results Twenty‐nine independent RCTs (reported in 38 papers) with 3274 participants were included. Small and statistically significant pooled effects of MBIs on combined measures of psychological distress were found at post‐intervention (Hedges's g = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.22‐0.41; P < .001) and follow‐up (g = 0.19; 95%CI: 0.07‐0.30; P < .002). Statistically significant effects were also found at either post‐intervention or follow‐up for a range of self‐reported secondary outcomes, including anxiety, depression, fear of cancer recurrence, fatigue, sleep disturbances, and pain (g: 0.20 to 0.51; p: <.001 to.047). Larger effects of MBIs on psychological distress were found in studies (a) adhering to the original MBI manuals, (b) with younger patients, (c) with passive control conditions, and (d) shorter time to follow‐up. Improvements in mindfulness skills were associated with greater reductions in psychological distress at post‐intervention. Conclusions MBIs appear efficacious in reducing psychological distress and other symptoms in cancer patients and survivors. However, many of the effects were of small magnitude, suggesting a need for intervention optimization research.

Our findings suggest most improvements in cancer patients' increase over time after both interventions. Furthermore, patients seemed to benefit more from eMBCT than MBCT based on psychological distress levels, especially those patients with low levels of mindfulness skills and conscientiousness.

BackgroundMindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) is an evidence-based group-based psychological treatment in oncology, resulting in reduction of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Internet-based MBCT (eMBCT) has been found to be an effective alternative for MBCT. The therapeutic alliance (the bond between therapist and patient,) is known to have a significant impact on psychological treatment outcomes, including MBCT. A primary concern in the practice of eMBCT is whether a good therapeutic alliance can develop. Although evidence for the beneficial effect of therapist assistance on treatment outcome in internet-based interventions (IBIs) is accumulating, it is still unclear whether the therapeutic alliance is related to outcome in IBIs.ObjectiveThis study aimed to (1) explore whether early therapeutic alliance predicts treatment dropout in MBCT or eMBCT, (2) compare the development of the therapeutic alliance during eMBCT and MBCT, and (3) examine whether early therapeutic alliance is a predictor of the reduction of psychological distress and the increase of mental well-being at posttreatment in both conditions.MethodsThis study was part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (n=245) on the effectiveness of MBCT or eMBCT for distressed cancer patients. The therapeutic alliance was measured at the start of week 2 (ie, early therapeutic alliance), week 5, and week 9. Outcome measures were psychological distress, measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and mental well-being, measured with the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form.ResultsThe strength of early therapeutic alliance did not predict treatment dropout in MBCT or eMBCT (B=−.39; P=.21). Therapeutic alliance increased over time in both conditions (F2,90=16.46; Wilks λ=0.732; P<.001). This increase did not differ between eMBCT and MBCT (F1,91=0.114; P=.74). Therapeutic alliance at week 2 predicted a decrease in psychological distress (B=−.12; t 114=−2.656; P=.01) and an increase in mental well-being (B=.23; t 113=2.651; P=.01) at posttreatment. The relationship with reduction of psychological distress differed between treatments: a weaker early therapeutic alliance predicted higher psychological distress at posttreatment in MBCT but not in eMBCT (B=.22; t 113=2.261; P=.03).ConclusionsA therapeutic alliance can develop in both eMBCT and MBCT. Findings revealed that the strength of early alliance did not predict treatment dropout. Furthermore, the level of therapeutic alliance predicted reduced psychological distress and increased mental well-being at posttreatment in both conditions. Interestingly, the strength of therapeutic alliance appeared to be more related to treatment outcome in group-based MBCT than in eMBCT.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02138513; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02138513

Background One in three cancer patients experience high psychological distress. Mindfulness-based interventions are effective in reducing psychological distress in this patient group. However, these interventions lack availability and flexibility, which may compromise participation in the intervention for cancer patients experiencing late symptoms like fatigue or pain. Therefore, mindfulness-based interventions are increasingly offered via the internet. However, little is known about the usage of these online mindfulness-based interventions. Objective The aim of this study was to (1) predict uptake of and adherence to online mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (eMBCT) using baseline patient characteristics (demographic, cancer-related, personality, and psychological variables) and (2) examine the relations between adherence and treatment outcomes in eMBCT for cancer patients. Methods A total of 125 cancer patients were assigned to eMBCT in a parent randomized controlled trial comparing MBCT and eMBCT with treatment as usual in distressed cancer patients. Various usage measures of eMBCT were automatically tracked within the online program. Based on activity of use, participants were classified as nonusers, minimal users, low users, and intended users. Questionnaires were used to assess baseline characteristics (preintervention) and outcomes (pre- and postintervention). To answer the research questions, data were analyzed with t tests, χ2 tests, and linear regression models. Results Based on weekly activity, participants were classified as nonusers (n=17, 13.6%), who completed no exercises in MBCT; minimal users (n=31, 24.8%), who completed at least one exercise of one to three sessions; low users (n=12, 9.6%), who completed at least one exercise of four to seven sessions; and intended users (n=65, 52.0%), who completed at least one exercise of eight to nine sessions. Nonusers had more fear of cancer recurrence at baseline than users (uptake), and intended users were more conscientious than minimal and low users (adherence). Intended users reported a larger reduction in psychological distress and more improvement of positive mental health (ie, emotional, psychological, and social well-being) after the intervention than other participants. Conclusions This study showed that adherence was related to improved patient outcomes. Patients with strong fear of recurrence or low levels of conscientiousness should receive extra attention, as they are less likely to respectively start or complete eMBCT. Future research may focus on the development of flexible and adaptive eMBCT programs to fit individual needs.