A systematic review of the mindful sport performance enhancement program

A systematic review of Mindful Sport Performance Enhancement (MSPE) research identified 41 studies, but only two had low risk of bias; most were rated moderate or high risk. Because of this and wide variation in outcomes and designs, reliable point estimates were not possible. Findings are encouraging, especially for mindfulness, anxiety, and emotion regulation, but insufficient rigorous investigations exist to draw robust conclusions about MSPE's efficacy. The review recommends future researchers use randomization or quasi-experimental designs, pre-registration, collaboration between practitioners and researchers, and detailed implementation reporting to improve rigor.

Study at a glance

Abstract

Mindful Sport Performance Enhancement (MSPE) is a manualized mindfulness-based intervention for performers. The availability and adaptability of MSPE make it accessible for application and research. There has been a proliferation of research examining the effects of MSPE with performers since it's development in 2009. However, there have been no attempts to synthesize the extant literature. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to systematically review the MSPE literature and provide recommendations for future study. The search generated 41 existing MSPE studies focusing on various dependent variables. Risk of bias analyses revealed just two studies were low risk, with many labeled as moderate or high risk. Because most studies had a high risk of bias, and because there is significant variation in outcomes and designs, reliable point estimates were not possible. While findings are encouraging, particularly with regard to mindfulness, anxiety and emotion regulation, it was concluded that insufficient rigorous investigations of MSPE exist to draw robust conclusions about the program's efficacy. Therefore, key findings indicate that future researchers can consider randomization or elements of quasi-experimental design to boost rigor. Additionally, rigor can be improved through pre-registration, collaboration between practitioners and researchers, and greater detail in implementation reporting.