Web-Based Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Well-being: Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness can improve overall well-being by training individuals to focus on the present moment without judging their thoughts. However, it is unknown how much mindfulness practice and training are necessary to improve well-being. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to determine whether a standard 8-session web-based mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) program, compared with a brief 3-session mindfulness intervention, improved overall participant well-being. In addition, we sought to explore whether the treatment effects differed based on the baseline characteristics of the participants (ie, moderators). METHODS: Participants were recruited from 17 patient-powered research networks, web-based communities of stakeholders interested in a common research area. Participants were randomized to either a standard 8-session MBCT or a brief 3-session mindfulness training intervention accessed on the web. The participants were followed for 12 weeks. The primary outcome of the study was well-being, as measured by the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index. We hypothesized that MBCT would be superior to a brief mindfulness training. RESULTS: We randomized 4411 participants, 3873 (87.80%) of whom were White and 3547 (80.41%) of female sex assigned at birth. The mean baseline World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index score was 50.3 (SD 20.7). The average self-reported well-being in each group increased over the intervention period (baseline to 8 weeks; model-based slope for the MBCT group: 0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.93, and brief mindfulness group: 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.91) as well as the full study period (ie, intervention plus follow-up; baseline to 20 weeks; model-based slope for MBCT group: 0.41, 95% CI 0.34-0.48; and brief mindfulness group: 0.33, 95% CI 0.26-0.40). Changes in self-reported well-being were not significantly different between MBCT and brief mindfulness during the intervention period (model-based difference in slopes: -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.19; P=.80) or during the intervention period plus 12-week follow-up (-0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.02; P=.10). During the intervention period, younger participants (P=.05) and participants who completed a higher percentage of intervention sessions (P=.005) experienced greater improvements in well-being across both interventions, with effects that were stronger for participants in the MBCT condition. Attrition was high (ie, 2142/4411, 48.56%), which is an important limitation of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Standard MBCT improved well-being but was not superior to a brief mindfulness intervention. This finding suggests that shorter mindfulness programs could yield important benefits across the general population of individuals with various medical conditions. Younger people and participants who completed more intervention sessions reported greater improvements in well-being, an effect that was more pronounced for participants in the MBCT condition. This finding suggests that standard MBCT may be a better choice for younger people as well as treatment-adherent individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03844321; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03844321.

Making Personalized Health Care Even More Personalized: Insights From Activities of the IOM Genomics Roundtable.

Genomic research has generated much new knowledge into mechanisms of human disease, with the potential to catalyze novel drug discovery and development, prenatal and neonatal screening, clinical pharmacogenomics, more sensitive risk prediction, and enhanced diagnostics. Genomic medicine, however, has been limited by critical evidence gaps, especially those related to clinical utility and applicability to diverse populations. Genomic medicine may have the greatest impact on health care if it is integrated into primary care, where most health care is received and where evidence supports the value of personalized medicine grounded in continuous healing relationships. Redesigned primary care is the most relevant setting for clinically useful genomic medicine research. Taking insights gained from the activities of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health, we apply lessons learned from the patient-centered medical home national experience to implement genomic medicine in a patient-centered, learning health care system.

Data Sharing Goals for Nonprofit Funders of Clinical Trials.

Sharing clinical trial data can provide value to research participants and communities by accelerating the development of new knowledge and therapies as investigators merge data sets to conduct new analyses, reproduce published findings to raise standards for original research, and learn from the work of others to generate new research questions. Nonprofit funders, including disease advocacy and patient-focused organizations, play a pivotal role in the promotion and implementation of data sharing policies. Funders are uniquely positioned to promote and support a culture of data sharing by serving as trusted liaisons between potential research participants and investigators who wish to access these participants' networks for clinical trial recruitment. In short, nonprofit funders can drive policies and influence research culture. The purpose of this paper is to detail a set of aspirational goals and forward thinking, collaborative data sharing solutions for nonprofit funders to fold into existing funding policies. The goals of this paper convey the complexity of the opportunities and challenges facing nonprofit funders and the appropriate prioritization of data sharing within their organizations and may serve as a starting point for a data sharing toolkit for nonprofit funders of clinical trials to provide the clarity of mission and mechanisms to enforce the data sharing practices their communities already expect are happening.

Importance of Participant-Centricity and Trust for a Sustainable Medical Information Commons.

Drawing on a landscape analysis of existing data-sharing initiatives, in-depth interviews with expert stakeholders, and public deliberations with community advisory panels across the U.S., we describe features of the evolving medical information commons (MIC). We identify participant-centricity and trustworthiness as the most important features of an MIC and discuss the implications for those seeking to create a sustainable, useful, and widely available collection of linked resources for research and other purposes.