The relationship between mindfulness and enduring somatic threat severity in long-term cardiac arrest survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest (CA) survivors experience continuous exposures to potential traumas though chronic cognitive, physical and emotional sequelae and enduring somatic threats (ESTs) (i.e., recurring somatic traumatic reminders of the event). Sources of ESTs can include the daily sensation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), ICD-delivered shocks, pain from rescue compressions, fatigue, weakness, and changes in physical function. Mindfulness, defined as non-judgmental present-moment awareness, is a teachable skill that might help CA survivors cope with ESTs. Here we describe the severity of ESTs in a sample of long-term CA survivors and explore the cross-sectional relationship between mindfulness and severity of ESTs. METHODS: We analyzed survey data of long-term CA survivors who were members of the Sudden Cardiac Arrest Foundation (collected 10-11/2020). We assessed ESTs using 4 cardiac threat items from the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-revised (items range from 0 "very little" to 4 "very much") which we summed to create a score reflecting total EST burden (range 0-16). We assessed mindfulness using the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised. First, we summarized the distribution of EST scores. Second, we used linear regression to describe the relationship between mindfulness and EST severity adjusting for age, gender, time since arrest, COVID-19-related stress, and loss of income due to COVID. RESULTS: We included 145 CA survivors (mean age: 51 years, 52% male, 93.8% white, mean time since arrest: 6 years, 24.1% scored in the upper quarter of EST severity). Greater mindfulness (ß: -30, p = 0.002), older age (ß: -0.30, p = 0.01) and longer time since CA (ß: -0.23, p = 0.005) were associated with lower EST severity. Male sex was also associated with greater EST severity (ß: 0.21, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: ESTs are common among CA survivors. Mindfulness may be a protective skill that CA survivors use to cope with ESTs. Future psychosocial interventions for the CA population should consider using mindfulness as a core skill to reduce ESTs.

"Hidden gains"? Measuring the impact of mindfulness-based interventions for people with mild traumatic brain injury: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions can support recovery from mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Although measurement is a key determinant of outcomes, there is no comprehensive assessment of measurement approaches used to capture outcomes of these programs. Here, we review the domains targeted, measurement techniques used, and domains and techniques most affected by mindfulness-based interventions for mTBI. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. After screening and full-text review, we included 29 articles and extracted data related to measurement domains, techniques, and results. RESULTS: We identified 8 outcome domains, each with multiple subdomains. The most common domains were cognitive symptoms and general health/quality of life. No quantitative studies directly assessed sleep, physical-function, or pain-catastrophizing. Self-report was the most common measurement technique, followed by performance-based methods. Coping, somatic symptoms, emotional symptoms, stress response, and domains of cognition (particularly attention) were the most frequently improved domains. Qualitative results described benefits across all domains and suggested novel areas of benefit. Biomarkers did not reflect significant change. CONCLUSIONS: Mindfulness-based interventions for mTBI impact a range of clinical domains and are best captured with a combination of measurement approaches. Using qualitative methods and expanding the breadth of outcomes may help capture underexplored effects of mindfulness-based interventions for mTBI.

Mechanisms of change in depression and anxiety within a mind-body activity intervention for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is challenging and costly to treat. Depression and anxiety co-occur with chronic pain. Identifying psychosocial mechanisms contributing to emotional outcomes among chronic pain patients can inform future iterations of this intervention. METHODS: We examined explanatory mechanisms of change in emotional distress following a mind-body and activity intervention among 82 participants (21 - 79 years old, 65.85% female, 80.48% White). With depression and anxiety as outcomes, we hypothesized that potential mediators would include pain catastrophizing, mindfulness, and pain resilience. We used mixed-effects modeling to assess the indirect effects of time on each outcome variable through hypothesized mediators simultaneously. RESULTS: Improvements in depression from baseline to post-treatment were most explained by pain catastrophizing (b = -2.53, CI = [-3.82, -1.43]), followed by mindfulness (b = -1.21, CI = [-2.15, -0.46]), and pain resilience (b = -0.76, CI = [-1.54, -1.66]). Improvements in anxiety from baseline to post-treatment were most explained by pain catastrophizing(b = -2.16, CI = [-3.45, -1.08]) and mindfulness (b = -1.51, CI = [-2.60, -0.65]), but not by pain resilience, (b = -0.47, CI = [-1.26, 0.17]). LIMITATIONS: Findings are limited by the lack of a control group, relatively small sample, and two timepoints. However, findings can guide future mind-body intervention efficacy testing trials. CONCLUSIONS: Pain catastrophizing and mindfulness appear to be important intervention targets to enhance emotional functioning for chronic pain patients, and should be considered simultaneously in interventions for chronic pain.

Feasibility and Efficacy of a Resiliency Intervention for the Prevention of Chronic Emotional Distress Among Survivor-Caregiver Dyads Admitted to the Neuroscience Intensive Care Unit: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To our knowledge, there are no evidence-based interventions to prevent chronic emotional distress (ie, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress [PTS]) in critical care survivors and their informal caregivers. Objective: To determine the feasibility and preliminary effect of the novel dyadic resiliency intervention Recovering Together (RT) on reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTS among hospitalized patients and their informal caregivers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-blind, pilot randomized clinical trial of RT vs an educational control was conducted among 58 dyads in which either the survivor or caregiver endorsed clinically significant symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTS. The study was conducted in the neuroscience intensive care unit at Massachusetts General Hospital. Data were collected from September 2019 to March 2020. Interventions: Both RT and control programs had 6 sessions (2 at bedside and 4 via live video after discharge), and both survivor and caregiver participated together. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment and intervention delivery, credibility, and satisfaction. The secondary outcomes included depression and anxiety (measured by the Hospital Depression and Anxiety Scale), PTS (measured by the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version), and intervention targets (ie, mindfulness, measured by the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised; coping, measured by the Measure of Current Status-Part A; and dyadic interpersonal interactions, measured by the Dyadic Relationship Scale). Main outcomes and targets were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Results: The 58 dyads were randomized to RT (29 dyads [50.0%]; survivors: mean [SD] age, 49.3 [16.7] years; 9 [31.0%] women; caregivers: mean [SD] age, 52.4 [14.3] years; 22 [75.9%] women) or control (29 dyads [50.0%]; survivors: mean [SD] age, 50.3 [16.4] years; 12 [41.3%] women; caregivers, mean [SD] age, 52.1 [14.9], 17 [58.6%] women). Feasibility (recruitment [76%], randomization [100%], and data collection [83%-100%]), adherence (86%), fidelity (100%; κ = 0.98), satisfaction (RT: 57 of 58 [98%] with scores >6; control: 58 of 58 [100%] with scores >6), credibility (RT: 47 of 58 [81%] with scores >6; control: 46 of 58 [80%] with scores >6), and expectancy (RT: 49 of 58 [85%] with scores >13.5; 51 of 58 [87%] with scores >13.5) exceeded benchmarks set a priori. Participation in RT was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement between baseline and postintervention in symptoms of depression (among survivors: -4.0 vs -0.6; difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -5.6 to -1.3; P = .002; among caregivers: -3.8 vs 0.6; difference, -4.5; 95% CI, -6.7 to -2.3; P < .001), anxiety (among survivors: -6.0 vs 0.3; difference, -6.3; 95% CI, -8.8 to -3.8; P < .001; among caregivers: -5.0 vs -0.9; difference, -4.1; 95% CI, -6.7 to -1.5, P = .002), and PTS (among survivors: -11.3 vs 1.0; difference, -12.3; 95% CI, -18.1 to -6.5, P < .001; among caregivers, -11.4 vs 5.0; difference, -16.4, 95% CI, -21.8 to -10.9; P < .001). Improvements sustained through the 12-week follow-up visit. We also observed RT-dependent improvement in dyadic interpersonal interactions for survivors (0.2 vs -0.2; difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.0 to 0.8; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this pilot randomized clinical trial, RT was feasible and potentially efficacious in preventing chronic emotional distress in dyads of survivors of the neuroscience intensive care unit and their informal caregivers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03694678.