Skip to content

The Effects of Mindfulness-Based Interventions on Telomere Length and Telomerase Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lukas Bossert, Karla Arzberger, Fabian Dorok, Julia Kern, Charlotte Stickler, Maximilian Wunderlich, Ulrich S. Tran

Mindfulness January 25, 2023 DOI: 10.1007/s12671-023-02075-x (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Systematic review and meta-analysis Peer reviewed
Sample size 2,099
Population Participants in 25 studies of mindfulness-based interventions, including experienced meditators in some studies
Intervention Mindfulness-based interventions
Topics Meditation
Citations 14
Key findings Mindfulness-based interventions showed small-to-medium average effects on telomere length (g = 0.23) and telomerase activity (g = 0.37), but the authors argue these effects were driven by weaker study designs and may not be specific to mindfulness. They conclude telomere length may not be a useful outcome for assessing common mindfulness interventions, and that more high-quality, high-powered, open-science studies are needed.

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Previous meta-analyses suggested that mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) may have beneficial effects on telomere length (TL) and telomerase activity (TA), two biological markers of cellular aging and cell stress. The present review aimed to provide the most comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence to date and tested a number of important effect moderators.

Method: Twenty-five studies (18 RCTs, 1 RCT and cohort study, 6 non-randomized studies) with 2099 participants in total were obtained with a systematic literature search, 10 studies had not been included in any previous meta-analysis. Effect sizes were aggregated with random-effects models, the risk of bias was evaluated with standardized checklists, and the most influential moderators were identified with a machine-learning approach.

Results: On average, MBIs had small-to-medium effects on TL ( g = 0.23, 95% CI = [0.07, 0.39], p = 0.006) and TA ( g = 0.37 [0.01, 0.73], p = 0.046), which, however, were driven by retrospective case–control studies with experienced meditators (TL) and by studies without control interventions and studies from Asia (TA). Most studies had an unclear risk of bias and low analytic power, and there was an indication of publication bias among the TL studies.

Conclusions: TL may not be a useful outcome to assess the efficacy of common MBIs. Effects on TA were smaller than previously assumed and may not be specific for MBIs; TA likely is increased by other active interventions as well. More high-quality and high-powered studies, which also apply open-science practices, are needed to move the field forward.

Comparable studies

Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on meditation, most cited first.

Study Year Design Participants
Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being Diverse adult clinical populations 2014 Meta-analysis n = 3,515
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Stress Management in Healthy People: A Review and Meta-Analysis Healthy subjects 2009 Systematic review and meta-analysis
The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Nonclinical groups of adult meditators 2012 Meta-analysis n = 163
Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Prevention of Depressive Relapse Adults with recurrent depression in full or partial remission 2016 Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials n = 1,258
Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy – a systematic review of randomized controlled trials 2011 Systematic review

Citations in the library

Explore topics