Differences in Student Well-Being Programs Across Top World Universities: A Comparative Study of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) Programs
Seyedeh Asra Sajadia, Thomas G. Plante
preprint DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9802600/v1 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Comparative documentary design |
|---|---|
| Population | Top 10 universities in each continent (Times Higher Education 2024) |
| Intervention | Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) |
| Duration | Two-month period |
| Topics | Meditation |
| Key points | Implementation of standardized MBSR in top universities is highly uneven, with only four offering a formal, ongoing program. |
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Despite extensive evidence on the benefits of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) programs for academic communities, little is known about the extent to which universities actually implement the standardized 8-week MBSR (weekly sessions, a full-day retreat, daily home practice, certified instructors).
Methods: Using a comparative documentary design (Tight, 2019), we systematically reviewed official webpages and documents of the top 10 universities in each continent (Times Higher Education 2024) over a two-month period.
Results: Implementation is highly uneven: only four universities (three in North America, one in Europe) offer a formal, ongoing MBSR; 23 institutions provide non-standardized mindfulness alternatives, concentrated in North America and Australia; Asia, Africa, and South America show limited engagement with this specific Western model. Beyond mapping prevalence, the study advances theory by proposing the Global MBSR Institutionalization Matrix (GMIM), crossing program fidelity with institutional embedding, and the F³ progression logic (Fidelity–Fit–Funding/Infrastructure)formalized institutional signaling and strategic representation., system-level adoption. We examine MBSR as one specific, resource-intensive benchmark of well-being, acknowledging it does not capture all culturally diverse or local initiatives.
Conclusions: Findings illuminate cultural, structural, and policy disparities and offer a practical framework for inclusive, context-sensitive scale-up of evidence-based well-being initiatives in higher education.