Group, One-on-One, or Internet? Preferences for Mindfulness Meditation Delivery Format and their Predictors.

Open medicine journal Pub Date : 2014-01-01 Epub Date: 2014-11-28 DOI:10.2174/1874220301401010066
Helané Wahbeh, Matthew N Svalina, Barry S Oken
{"title":"Group, One-on-One, or Internet? Preferences for Mindfulness Meditation Delivery Format and their Predictors.","authors":"Helané Wahbeh, Matthew N Svalina, Barry S Oken","doi":"10.2174/1874220301401010066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Group mindfulness meditation interventions have improved symptoms in many health conditions. However, many people are unwilling to receive group treatment, so alternative delivery methods such as individual and internet may be a useful option. The study objective was to examine mindfulness meditation intervention delivery format preferences and their relationship to potential predictors.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>An online survey was conducted of adult English speakers. Data was collected on interest and preference for internet, individual, or group formats of a mindfulness meditation intervention. Age, gender, personality, and posttraumatic stress disorder score and status and depression status were also collected.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusions: </strong>500 eligible participants completed the survey (mean age 39±15; range 18-70; 68% female). Participants were more interested in the Internet (n=356) and individual formats (n=384) than the group format (n=245). Fifty-five participants (11%) said they would refuse a group format. Internet was the first choice format for most participants (Internet 212 (43%), Individual 187 (38%), Group 97 (20%) and group was the last choice for most participants (Internet 140 (29%), Individual 70 (14%), Group 279 (57%)). Age, extraversion and emotional stability were significant in predicting first choice format. These results support the need for more research and implementation of alternative mindfulness meditation intervention delivery formats. Future research will incorporate additional predictors and include a broader range of participants.</p>","PeriodicalId":91371,"journal":{"name":"Open medicine journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"66-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4820831/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open medicine journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874220301401010066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/11/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Group mindfulness meditation interventions have improved symptoms in many health conditions. However, many people are unwilling to receive group treatment, so alternative delivery methods such as individual and internet may be a useful option. The study objective was to examine mindfulness meditation intervention delivery format preferences and their relationship to potential predictors.

Design: An online survey was conducted of adult English speakers. Data was collected on interest and preference for internet, individual, or group formats of a mindfulness meditation intervention. Age, gender, personality, and posttraumatic stress disorder score and status and depression status were also collected.

Results and conclusions: 500 eligible participants completed the survey (mean age 39±15; range 18-70; 68% female). Participants were more interested in the Internet (n=356) and individual formats (n=384) than the group format (n=245). Fifty-five participants (11%) said they would refuse a group format. Internet was the first choice format for most participants (Internet 212 (43%), Individual 187 (38%), Group 97 (20%) and group was the last choice for most participants (Internet 140 (29%), Individual 70 (14%), Group 279 (57%)). Age, extraversion and emotional stability were significant in predicting first choice format. These results support the need for more research and implementation of alternative mindfulness meditation intervention delivery formats. Future research will incorporate additional predictors and include a broader range of participants.

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
小组、一对一还是互联网?对正念冥想授课形式的偏好及其预测因素。
目的:团体正念冥想干预可以改善许多健康问题的症状。然而,很多人不愿意接受集体治疗,因此个人和互联网等替代方法可能是一种有用的选择。本研究旨在考察正念冥想干预的实施形式偏好及其与潜在预测因素之间的关系:设计:对讲英语的成年人进行在线调查。收集的数据涉及对正念冥想干预的互联网、个人或小组形式的兴趣和偏好。此外,还收集了年龄、性别、性格、创伤后应激障碍得分和状态以及抑郁状态等方面的数据:500 名符合条件的参与者完成了调查(平均年龄为 39±15;年龄范围为 18-70;68% 为女性)。与小组形式(245 人)相比,参与者对互联网(356 人)和个人形式(384 人)更感兴趣。55名参与者(11%)表示他们会拒绝小组形式。互联网是大多数参与者的首选形式(互联网 212 人(43%)、个人 187 人(38%)、小组 97 人(20%)),而小组是大多数参与者的最后选择(互联网 140 人(29%)、个人 70 人(14%)、小组 279 人(57%))。年龄、外向性和情绪稳定性在预测首选形式方面具有重要意义。这些结果支持了对其他正念冥想干预形式进行更多研究和实施的必要性。未来的研究将纳入更多的预测因素,并包括更广泛的参与者。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
China Against Drug Resistance (CARE) Point Prevalence Study: A Tool for Evaluating Hospital Acquired Infections and Antimicrobial Prescription at Patient Bedside CLEC4A Expression as a Prognostic Biomarker and Immunoregulator in Lung Adenocarcinoma: Insights from Immune Cell Infiltration Value of the A2DS2 Score Combined with the Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte Ratio in Predicting Acute Ischemic Stroke-associated Pneumonia Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in a Patient with Liver Cirrhosis: Case Report and Literature Review Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Four Different Fixation Systems: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
×
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