Underestimating harm in mindfulness-based stress reduction
Nicholas T. van Dam, Julieta Galante
Psychological Medicine December 7, 2020 DOI: 10.1017/s003329172000447x (opens in new tab) via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractA critique of a recent study on harm after mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programs points out serious methodological limitations that undermine confidence in the authors' conclusion that MBSR is no more harmful than no treatment. The original study used a large observational dataset of 2,155 participants alongside active and wait-list arms of randomized controlled trials (156 and 118 participants respectively). The critique argues that despite the seemingly conclusive finding, the methods employed have potentially serious flaws.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Commentary or critique Randomized Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Meditation |
| Keywords | Content measure theory Harm reduction Mindfulness-based stress reduction Action physics Stress linguistics |
| Citations | 19 |
| Key finding | Argues that the methods used in a recent study on harm following MBSR have potentially serious limitations that undermine confidence in the authors' conclusions. |
Abstract
In a recent study of harm following the completion of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programs, the authors used a large observational dataset (n = 2155), alongside the active arm (n = 156) and wait-list arm (n = 118) of several amalgamated randomized controlled trials The authors interpret their results as 'strong evidence that MBSR is no more harmful than no treatment' (p. 8). While seemingly conclusive, we would like to point out some potentially serious limitations to the methods used that undermine confidence in the authors' conclusions.