Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDemarzo, M. M. P.
dc.contributor.authorMontero-Marin, J.
dc.contributor.authorCuijpers, P.
dc.contributor.authorZabaleta-del-Olmo, E.
dc.contributor.authorMahtani, K. R.
dc.contributor.authorVellinga, A.
dc.contributor.authorVicens, C.
dc.contributor.authorLopez-del-Hoyo, Y.
dc.contributor.authorGarcia-Campayo, J.
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-20T16:05:41Z
dc.date.available2018-09-20T16:05:41Z
dc.date.issued2015-11-01
dc.identifier.citationDemarzo, M. M. P. Montero-Marin, J.; Cuijpers, P.; Zabaleta-del-Olmo, E.; Mahtani, K. R.; Vellinga, A.; Vicens, C.; Lopez-del-Hoyo, Y.; Garcia-Campayo, J. (2015). The efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions in primary care: a meta-analytic review. The Annals of Family Medicine 13 (6), 573-582
dc.identifier.issn1544-1709,1544-1717
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10379/11137
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE 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.
dc.publisherAnnals of Family Medicine
dc.relation.ispartofThe Annals of Family Medicine
dc.subjectmindfulness-based interventions
dc.subjectprimary care
dc.subjectmeta-analysis
dc.subjectrandomized controlled trials
dc.subjectcomplex interventions
dc.subjectpractice-base research
dc.subjectmedically unexplained symptoms
dc.subjectrandomized controlled-trial
dc.subjectcognitive therapy
dc.subjectpublication bias
dc.subjectdepression
dc.subjectmeditation
dc.subjectquality
dc.subjectanxiety
dc.subjectrelapse
dc.subjectstress
dc.titleThe efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions in primary care: a meta-analytic review
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1370/afm.1863
dc.local.publishedsourcehttp://www.annfammed.org/content/13/6/573.full.pdf
nui.item.downloads0


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record