Mindfulness enhances cognitive functioning: a meta-analysis of 111 randomized controlled trials.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Health Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-30 DOI:10.1080/17437199.2023.2248222
Nur Hani Zainal, Michelle G Newman
{"title":"Mindfulness enhances cognitive functioning: a meta-analysis of 111 randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Nur Hani Zainal, Michelle G Newman","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2023.2248222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently no comprehensive meta-analysis of MBI efficacy on global and unique cognitive subdomains exist.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Examined the effects of MBIs on global cognition and 15 cognitive subdomains. Inclusion criteria: meditation naïve participants; randomized controlled trial; outcome included one objective or subjective cognitive functioning measure; primary focus was teaching mindfulness skills. Exclusion criteria: inadequate data; one-session ; control condition contained any MBI component. Robust variance estimation and moderator analyses controlling for presence of treatment fidelity were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-hundred-and-eleven RCTs (<i>n</i> = 9,538) met eligibility criteria. MBIs had small-to-moderate significant effects on global cognition, executive attention, working memory accuracy, inhibition accuracy, shifting accuracy, sustained attention, and subjective cognitive functioning (vs. waitlist/no-treatment, <i>g</i> = 0.257-0.643; vs. active controls, <i>g</i> = 0.192-0.394). MBIs did not impact executive functioning (EF) latency indices, verbal fluency, processing speed, episodic memory, and cognitive error. Treatment effects were stronger for those with elevated psychiatric symptoms vs. healthy controls, and medical samples, studies with complete-case (vs. intention-to-treat) analysis, face-to-face (vs. self-guided) delivery, and non-standard (vs. standard MBI).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MBIs consistently yielded small-to-moderate yet practically meaningful effect sizes on global cognition and six cognitive subdomains that captured accuracy vs. latency-based indices of EF and sustained accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10902202/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2023.2248222","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Currently no comprehensive meta-analysis of MBI efficacy on global and unique cognitive subdomains exist.

Method: Examined the effects of MBIs on global cognition and 15 cognitive subdomains. Inclusion criteria: meditation naïve participants; randomized controlled trial; outcome included one objective or subjective cognitive functioning measure; primary focus was teaching mindfulness skills. Exclusion criteria: inadequate data; one-session ; control condition contained any MBI component. Robust variance estimation and moderator analyses controlling for presence of treatment fidelity were conducted.

Results: One-hundred-and-eleven RCTs (n = 9,538) met eligibility criteria. MBIs had small-to-moderate significant effects on global cognition, executive attention, working memory accuracy, inhibition accuracy, shifting accuracy, sustained attention, and subjective cognitive functioning (vs. waitlist/no-treatment, g = 0.257-0.643; vs. active controls, g = 0.192-0.394). MBIs did not impact executive functioning (EF) latency indices, verbal fluency, processing speed, episodic memory, and cognitive error. Treatment effects were stronger for those with elevated psychiatric symptoms vs. healthy controls, and medical samples, studies with complete-case (vs. intention-to-treat) analysis, face-to-face (vs. self-guided) delivery, and non-standard (vs. standard MBI).

Conclusion: MBIs consistently yielded small-to-moderate yet practically meaningful effect sizes on global cognition and six cognitive subdomains that captured accuracy vs. latency-based indices of EF and sustained accuracy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正念增强认知功能:111项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。
背景:目前还没有关于MBI在全球和独特认知亚领域疗效的综合荟萃分析。方法:考察MBI对全球认知和15个认知亚域的影响。入选标准:冥想天真的参与者;随机对照试验;结果包括一个客观或主观的认知功能测量;主要的重点是教授正念技能。排除标准:数据不足;一次会议;对照条件包含任何MBI成分。对治疗保真度的存在进行了稳健方差估计和调节因子分析。结果:一百一十一项随机对照试验(n = 9538)符合资格标准。MBI对全局认知、执行注意力、工作记忆准确性、抑制准确性、转移准确性、持续注意力和主观认知功能有小到中等的显著影响(与等待名单/不治疗相比,g=0.27-0.643;与主动对照相比,g = 0.192-0.394)。MBI不影响执行功能(EF)潜伏期指数、语言流利性、处理速度、情景记忆和认知错误。与健康对照组、医学样本、具有完整病例(与治疗意向)分析的研究、面对面(与自我指导)交付相比,精神症状加重的患者的治疗效果更强,和非标准(与标准MBI相比)。结论:MBI对全局认知和六个认知子域始终产生小到中等但实际有意义的影响,这些认知子域捕捉了EF和持续准确性的准确性与基于延迟的指数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
期刊最新文献
Components of multiple health behaviour change interventions for patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-regression of randomized trials. Identifying the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Protection motivation theory and health behaviour: conceptual review, discussion of limitations, and recommendations for best practice and future research. Inhibitory control training to reduce appetitive behaviour: a meta-analytic investigation of effectiveness, potential moderators, and underlying mechanisms of change. Psychosocial determinants of alternative protein choices: a meta-review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1