Skip to content

The Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Primary Care: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Marcelo Demarzo, Jesus Montero-Marin, Pim Cuijpers, Edurne Zabaleta-del-Olmo, Kamal R Mahtani, Akke Vellinga, Caterina Vicens, Yolanda López-del-hoyo, Javier García-campayo

Annals of family medicine November 1, 2015 DOI: 10.1370/afm.1863 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Meta-analysis Randomized Peer reviewed
Sample size 553
Population Adult patients recruited from primary care settings
Intervention Mindfulness-based interventions
Topics Meditation
Keywords Humans Chronic disease Treatment outcome Adult Middle aged Primary health care Female Meta-analysis Randomized controlled trials Primary care Complex interventions Mindfulness-based interventions Practice-base research
Key findings Across 6 randomized controlled trials with 553 primary care patients, mindfulness-based interventions showed moderate effects on general health (g = 0.48) and mental health (g = 0.56) and a small effect on quality of life (g = 0.29). The authors suggest these interventions are promising for primary care patients, while noting the limited number of trials.

Abstract

Purpose: Positive effects have been reported after mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in diverse clinical and nonclinical populations. Primary care is a key health care setting for addressing common chronic conditions, and an effective MBI designed for this setting could benefit countless people worldwide. Meta-analyses of MBIs have become popular, but little is known about their efficacy in primary care. Our aim was to investigate the application and efficacy of MBIs that address primary care patients.

Methods: We performed a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials addressing the effect of MBIs in adult patients recruited from primary care settings. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. Effect sizes were calculated with the Hedges g in random effects models.

Results: The meta-analyses were based on 6 trials having a total of 553 patients. The overall effect size of MBI compared with a control condition for improving general health was moderate (g = 0.48; P = .002), with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 59; P <.05). We found no indication of publication bias in the overall estimates. MBIs were efficacious for improving mental health (g = 0.56; P = .007), with a high heterogeneity (I(2) = 78; P <.01), and for improving quality of life (g = 0.29; P = .002), with a low heterogeneity (I(2) = 0; P >.05).

Conclusions: Although the number of randomized controlled trials applying MBIs in primary care is still limited, our results suggest that these interventions are promising for the mental health and quality of life of primary care patients. We discuss innovative approaches for implementing MBIs, such as complex intervention and stepped care.

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

Cited by 39

and 34 more in the library

Cites 11

and 6 more in the library

Explore topics