Is mindfulness research methodology improving over time? A systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundDespite an exponential growth in research on mindfulness-based interventions, the body of scientific evidence supporting these treatments has been criticized for being of poor methodological quality.ObjectivesThe current systematic review examined the extent to which mindfulness research demonstrated increased rigor over the past 16 years regarding six methodological features that have been highlighted as areas for improvement. These feature included using active control conditions, larger sample sizes, longer follow-up assessment, treatment fidelity assessment, and reporting of instructor training and intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science in addition to a publically available repository of mindfulness studies.Study eligibility criteriaRandomized clinical trials of mindfulness-based interventions for samples with a clinical disorder or elevated symptoms of a clinical disorder listed on the American Psychological Association’s list of disorders with recognized evidence-based treatment.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsIndependent raters screened 9,067 titles and abstracts, with 303 full text reviews. Of these, 171 were included, representing 142 non-overlapping samples.ResultsAcross the 142 studies published between 2000 and 2016, there was no evidence for increases in any study quality indicator, although changes were generally in the direction of improved quality. When restricting the sample to those conducted in Europe and North America (continents with the longest history of scientific research in this area), an increase in reporting of ITT analyses was found. When excluding an early, high-quality study, improvements were seen in sample size, treatment fidelity assessment, and reporting of ITT analyses.Conclusions and implications of key findingsTaken together, the findings suggest modest adoption of the recommendations for methodological improvement voiced repeatedly in the literature. Possible explanations for this and implications for interpreting this body of research and conducting future studies are discussed.

Incidencia del mindfulness en el estrés académico en estudiantes universitarios: Un estudio controlado

“…Sin embargo, muchos científicos indican que a pesar de su popularidad y supuestos beneficios para la salud y el bienestar psicológico, aún faltan datos duros sobre la eficacia del MF en la clínica (Barnes, Hattan, Black & Schuman, 2017;Cho, Ryu, Noh & Lee, 2016;Goldberg,Tucker, Greene, Simpson, Kearney & Davidson, 2017;en el trabajo (D´Abundo, Cara & Kelly, 2016;Goyal, Singh & Sibinga, 2014;De Vibe, Solhaug, Tyssen, Friborg, Rosenvinge & Sørlie, 2013), y la escuela (Miller, Borsatto & Al-Salom, 2018;Dvořáková et al, 2017;Galante, et al, 2016). Una revisión de la literatura (Goldberg, Tucker, Greene, Simpson, Kearney & Davidson, 2017), encontró que solo el 10% de las investigaciones basadas en el MF utilizaron un grupo de control, y que por lo tanto no había forma de contrastar los hallazgos; varios estudios de meta-análisis han obtenido resultados modestos sobre la efectividad del MF en la reducción del estrés, ansiedad, depresión, dolor e ira en poblaciones clínicas y normales, así como en el incremento de la atención y productividad laboral y rendimiento escolar. Varios estudios de revisión de la literatura indican que el MF parecen ser aceptables en el mejoramiento de la salud, pero se requieren investigaciones con mayor rigor metodológico para corroborar los hallazgos (Muñoz, Hoppes, Hellman, Brunk, Bragg, & Cummins, 2016;Hyland, 2016;Kreplin, Farias, & Brazil, 2018;Shahidi, Akbari, & Zargar, 2017).…”

A study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial on mindfulness-based stress reduction: Studying effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction and an additional organisational health intervention on mental health and work-related perceptions of teachers in Dutch secondary vocational schools

“…Research on mindfulness is often criticised for its poor methodological quality [32,33]. However, it is impossible to do such research using a double-blind placebo-controlled design, which is often applied in medical interventions [34].…”

“…This raises questions about which methodological features should be included to improve the research design. Goldberg et al [32] highlighted six features: 1) active control conditions to consider the amount of non-specific attention participants receive, called the Hawthorne effect [35]; 2) larger sample sizes; 3) longer follow-up assessment to measure the sustainability of training effects; 4) evaluation of treatment fidelity; 5)…”

What can we learn from randomized clinical trials about the construct validity of self-report measures of mindfulness? A meta-analysis

“…As Cronbach and Meehl (1955) Results from RCTs using these measures, particularly when also using comparison conditions that are intended to be therapeutic (Goldberg et al, 2017), can help assess the degree to which specific effects related to training in mindfulness are present. The development of novel assessment methods (e.g., significant-other ratings, observer ratings, mindfulness teacher ratings) may provide valuable alternatives to self-report measures of mindfulness in future studies.…”