Skip to content

The effect of mindfulness interventions on couple relationship satisfaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Andreas Voldstad, Ananda Zeas-Sigüenza, Anton Skolzkov, Mari Walthaug, Jesus Montero-Marin, Willem Kuyken

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology June 1, 2025 DOI: 10.1037/ccp0000954 (opens in new tab)

Read Full Text
Relevant Not relevant

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Systematic review and meta-analysis Randomized Peer reviewed
Sample size 6,097
Population Participants in a couple relationship
Intervention Mindfulness interventions
Topics Meditation
Keywords Awareness Presence Attentiveness Romantic relationships Partnerships Couples Bonds Interpersonal connections Relationship satisfaction Contentment Harmony Well-being Happiness
Citations 2
Key findings Mindfulness interventions have a consistent small effect on relationship satisfaction, but the quality of evidence is very low.

Abstract

Mindfulness interventions (MIs) train nonjudgmental attention to present-moment experience and aim to improve mental health and well-being. The evidence for their effect on interpersonal relationships is promising but uncertain. This study examines the effect of MIs on couple relationship satisfaction (RS). Randomized controlled trials of MIs including RS were selected based on systematic searches in Web of Science, PubMed, APA PsycInfo, Embase, Cochrane Central, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. We applied three-level meta-analysis with robust variance estimation to pool effects and multimodel approaches to explore moderators. We calculated 90 effect sizes (k) nested within 28 studies (K) including 6,097 participants in a couple relationship. MIs had a significant medium effect on RS with high heterogeneity (g = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [0.16, 1.04], I2 = 97 [95, 99]). The effect on RS was influenced by extreme outliers (e.g., g up to 7.48). Removing outliers resulted in a significant small effect with low heterogeneity (g = 0.21 [0.11, 0.31], I2 = 25 [0, 67], k = 85, K = 26). Effects were moderated by intervention length, baseline satisfaction, and risk of bias. There were significant effects for both clinical and community samples. The certainty of the evidence is very low due to inconsistency, imprecision, risk of bias, and suspicion of publication bias. Generalization is limited by insufficient reporting. This meta-analysis indicates that MIs have a consistent small effect on RS, but the quality of evidence points to the need for program theory and rigorous methodology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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 2

Related reading

Explore topics

Meditation