Efficacy of a mindfulness-based programme with and without virtual reality support to reduce stress in university students: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of a mindfulness-based programme (MBP) for reducing stress in university students and its action mechanisms and to explore the capacity of virtual reality (VR) exposure to enhance adherence to the intervention. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) involved assessment time points of baseline, posttreatment, and 6-month follow-up. A total of 280 students from two Spanish universities were randomly assigned to 'MBP', 'MBP + VR', or 'Relaxation' (active controls). Perceived stress posttreatment was the primary outcome; wellbeing and academic functional outcomes were assessed as well. Multilevel mixed-effects models were performed to estimate the efficacy of the programme. RESULTS: Both 'MBP' (B = -2.77, d = -0.72, p = .006) and 'MBP + VR' (B = -2.44, d = -0.59, p = .014) were superior to 'Relaxation' in improving stress, as well as most of the secondary outcomes, with medium-to-large effects posttreatment and at follow-up. The long-term effects of MBPs on stress were mediated by mindfulness and self-compassion in parallel. Treatment adherence was improved in the 'MBP + VR' group, with higher retention rates and session attendance (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This RCT supports the efficacy of an MBP compared to relaxation for reducing stress in university students through mindfulness and self-compassion as mechanisms of change. VR exposure may enhance treatment adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03771300.

Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in adults in nonclinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for mental health promotion in nonclinical settings. Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are being widely implemented to reduce stress, but a comprehensive evidence synthesis is lacking. We reviewed trials to assess whether MBPs promote mental health relative to no intervention or comparator interventions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Following a detailed preregistered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42018105213) developed with public and professional stakeholders, 13 databases were searched to August 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining in-person, expert-defined MBPs in nonclinical settings. Two researchers independently selected, extracted, and appraised trials using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were psychometrically validated anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and mental well-being questionnaires at 1 to 6 months after programme completion. Multiple testing was performed using p < 0.0125 (Bonferroni) for statistical significance. Secondary outcomes, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were prespecified. Pairwise random-effects multivariate meta-analyses and prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated. A total of 11,605 participants in 136 trials were included (29 countries, 77% women, age range 18 to 73 years). Compared with no intervention, in most but not all scenarios MBPs improved average anxiety (8 trials; standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to -0.33; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.19 to 0.06), depression (14 trials; SMD = -0.53; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.34; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.14 to 0.07), distress (27 trials; SMD = -0.45; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.31; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.04 to 0.14), and well-being (9 trials; SMD = 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54; p-value = 0.003; 95% PI -0.29 to 0.94). Compared with nonspecific active control conditions, in most but not all scenarios MBPs improved average depression (6 trials; SMD = -0.46; 95% CI -0.81 to -0.10; p-value = 0.012, 95% PI -1.57 to 0.66), with no statistically significant evidence for improving anxiety or distress and no reliable data on well-being. Compared with specific active control conditions, there is no statistically significant evidence of MBPs' superiority. Only effects on distress remained when higher-risk trials were excluded. USA-based trials reported smaller effects. MBPs targeted at higher-risk populations had larger effects than universal MBPs. The main limitation of this review is that confidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is moderate to very low, mainly due to inconsistency and high risk of bias in many trials. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with taking no action, MBPs of the included studies promote mental health in nonclinical settings, but given the heterogeneity between studies, the findings do not support generalisation of MBP effects across every setting. MBPs may have specific effects on some common mental health symptoms. Other preventative interventions may be equally effective. Implementation of MBPs in nonclinical settings should be partnered with thorough research to confirm findings and learn which settings are most likely to benefit.

Testing the Efficacy of 'Unlearning', a Mindfulness and Compassion-Based Programme for Cultivating Nonviolence in Teenagers: A Randomised Controlled Trial.

Background: Most programmes developed to reduce aggressive attitudes among teenagers are based on cultivating nonviolence, a construct that has been related to compassion and, more indirectly, mindfulness. This study aims at testing the efficacy of 'Unlearning', a mindfulness and compassion-based programme, for reducing aggressive attitudes in adolescents. Method: A sample of 164 students from three high schools in Zaragoza (Spain) participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to (1) 'Unlearning', or (2) relaxation programme. Three assessment points were established: baseline, post-treatment and a 4-month follow-up. The outcome variables were the subscales of the 'Attitudes Toward Social Aggression Scale'. Mindfulness and compassion were assessed as secondary outcomes. Results: 'Unlearning' did not produce changes in the primary outcomes, but significant effects were observed post-treatment in self-compassion; and in the follow-up, in self-compassion and mindfulness. The control group did not experience any change post-treatment, but a significant effect in mindfulness was observed in the follow-up. The intergroup analyses indicated that 'Unlearning' improved self-compassion, both post-treatment (t = -2.48, p = 0.014) and after 4-months (t = -2.03, p = 0.044), although these results were not statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons. Conclusion: 'Unlearning' did not produce significant reductions in aggressive attitudes compared to the control group. The low baseline levels may have hindered the efficacy of the interventions. 'Unlearning' showed potential to improve self-compassion, which is related to nonviolence, and this may have positive implications for the adolescents. Future interventions should include teachers and families to enhance the effectiveness of the programmes.