How often should I meditate? A randomized trial examining the role of meditation frequency when total amount of meditation is held constant.

Meditation apps are the most commonly used mental health apps. However, the optimal dosing of app-delivered meditation practice has not been established. We examined whether the distribution of meditation practices across a day impacted outcomes in a distressed population. We investigated the effects of meditation practice frequency in a 2-week compassion-based meditation intervention delivered via the Healthy Minds Program app. Undergraduates with clinically elevated depression and/or anxiety (N = 351) were randomized to a massed (one 20-min meditation per day) or distributed condition (two 10-min meditations per day). Psychological distress (primary outcome; composite of depression and anxiety), experiential avoidance, fear of missing out, loneliness, and self-compassion were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Psychological distress, loneliness, and informal meditation practice were also assessed daily. Practice time and frequency were assessed using app data. Results support feasibility of the study design, success of the manipulation, and acceptability of the intervention. Pooled across conditions, participants exhibited pre-post improvements on all outcomes (absolute value of ds = 0.12-0.63, p ≤ .010) and trajectories of improvement on daily distress and loneliness (p ≤ .010). No between-group differences were observed on changes in pre-post or daily measures (ps = .158-.729). When total amount of meditation practice per day is held constant, the distribution of practice may not influence outcomes for distressed beginners. Although only a first test of dose frequency effects, findings support flexibility in the distribution of meditation throughout the day, which may increase accessibility. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Mindful Eco-Wellness: Steps Toward Personal and Planetary Health.

Rising greenhouse gas levels heat the earth's surface and alter climate patterns, posing unprecedented threats to planetary ecology and human health. At the same time, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease have reached epidemic proportions across the globe, caused in part by decreases in physical activity and by over-consumption of carbon-intensive foods. Thus, interventions that support active transportation (walking or cycling rather than driving) and healthier food choices (eating plant-based rather than meat-based diets) would yield health and sustainability "co-benefits." Emerging research suggests that mindfulness-based practices might be effective means toward these ends. At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, we have developed a mindfulness-based group program, Mindful Eco-Wellness: Steps Toward Healthier Living. Loosely based on the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction course, our curriculum teaches mindfulness practices in tandem with sustainability principles, following weekly themes of Air, Water, Food, Energy, Transportation, Consumption, Nature Experience, and Ethics. For example, the "Air" class offers participants practice in guided breath meditations while they learn about the benefits of clean air. The theme of "Food" is presented through mindful eating, accompanied by educational videos highlighting the consequences of food production and consumption. "Transportation" includes walking/movement meditations and highlights the health benefits of physical activity and detriments of fossil-fueled transportation. Pedagogical lessons on energy, ecological sustainability, and the ethics of planetary health are intertwined with mindful nature experience and metta (loving-kindness) meditation. Curricular materials, including teaching videos, are freely available online. Pilot testing in community settings (n = 30) and in group medical visits (n = 34) has demonstrated feasibility; pilot data suggests potential effectiveness. Rigorous evaluation and testing are needed.

Who Sticks with Meditation? Rates and Predictors of Persistence in a Population-based Sample in the USA.

Objectives: Despite the well-documented psychological benefits of meditation practice, limited research has examined factors associated with meditation practice persistence. Like other health behaviors (e.g., exercise), non-persistence may undermine the effectiveness of meditation. Methods: We examined rates and correlates of meditation persistence using a population-based sample (n = 953) in the United States. Persistence was operationalized in two ways: number of lifetime practice sessions (i.e., lifetime persistence) and current practice frequency (i.e., current persistence). Consistent with the National Health Interview Survey, we defined meditation as mindfulness meditation, mantra meditation, and spiritual meditation. We examined factors related to the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA), a theory that has been used to explain adherence to health behaviors. Results: Almost half of the sample (49.3%) indicated lifetime exposure to meditation and a third (35.0%) indicated practice in the past year. Factors positively associated with persistence (lifetime and/or current) included having spoken with a meditation teacher, higher perceived effectiveness of meditation, higher meditation-positive subjective norms, lower perceived barriers, higher conscientiousness, higher wellbeing growth mindset, and retreat experience. Factors negatively associated with persistence included first exposure through various forms of technology and having a mental health motivation for practice. First exposure through a smartphone app and first exposure through friends and family were not associated with lifetime or current persistence. Findings were unchanged after controlling for demographics and applying a false discovery rate p-value adjustment. Conclusions: These findings provide insights into factors that may promote persistence with meditation which can guide the delivery of meditation training. Preregistration: This study was preregistered at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4h86s).

Does meditation training promote pro-environmental behavior? A cross-sectional comparison and a randomized controlled trial.

Meditation training may promote pro-environmental behavior and related variables, though limited research has tested this experimentally. We investigated whether short- or long-term meditation training were associated with pro-environmental behavior, environmental attitudes, and sustainable well-being (i.e., well-being per unit consumption). In a cross-sectional comparison, long-term meditators (n=31; mean=9,154 meditation hours) displayed greater environmental attitudes (d=0.63) but not pro-environmental behavior or sustainable well-being compared to meditation-naïve participants (ds=-0.14-0.27). In a randomized controlled trial (n=125), eight-week training in Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction did not significantly improve target variables relative to waitlist or structurally-matched active control (ds=-0.38-0.43). However, relative to waitlist, randomization to either meditation or active control predicted increases in pro-environmental behavior (d=-0.40) and sustainable well-being (d=0.42), although the latter finding was not robust to multiple imputation. While meditation training may promote pro-environmental behavior and its antecedents, the training investigated here does not appear to be uniquely effective.

The Empirical Status of Mindfulness-Based Interventions: A Systematic Review of 44 Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials.

In response to questions regarding the scientific basis for mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), we evaluated their empirical status by systematically reviewing meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched six databases for effect sizes based on four or more trials that did not combine passive and active controls. Heterogeneity, moderators, tests of publication bias, risk of bias, and adverse effects were also extracted. Representative effect sizes based on the largest number of studies were identified across a wide range of populations, problems, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (PICOS). A total of 160 effect sizes were reported in 44 meta-analyses (k = 336 RCTs, N = 30,483 participants). MBIs showed superiority to passive controls across most PICOS (ds = 0.10-0.89). Effects were typically smaller and less often statistically significant compared with active controls. MBIs were similar or superior to specific active controls and evidence-based treatments. Heterogeneity was typically moderate. Few consistent moderators were found. Results were generally robust to publication bias, although other important sources of bias were identified. Reporting of adverse effects was inconsistent. Statistical power may be lacking in meta-analyses, particularly for comparisons with active controls. Because MBIs show promise across some PICOS, future RCTs and meta-analyses should build on identified strengths and limitations of this literature.

Efficacy and acceptability of mindfulness-based interventions for military veterans: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Military veterans report high rates of psychiatric and physical health symptoms that may be amenable to mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs). Inconsistent prior findings and questions of fit between MBIs and military culture highlight the need for a systematic evaluation of this literature. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the efficacy and acceptability of MBIs for military veterans. DATA SOURCES: We searched five databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO) from inception to October 16th, 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing MBIs in military veterans. RESULTS: Twenty studies (k = 16 unique comparisons, N = 898) were included. At post-treatment, MBIs were superior to non-specific controls (e.g., waitlist, attentional placebos) on measures of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, general psychological symptoms (i.e., aggregated across symptom domains), quality of life / functioning, and mindfulness (Hedges' gs = 0.32 to 0.80), but not physical health. At follow-up (mean length = 3.19 months), MBIs continued to outperform non-specific controls on general psychological symptoms, but not PTSD. MBIs were superior to specific active controls (i.e., other therapies) at post-treatment on measures of PTSD and general psychological symptoms (gs = 0.19 to 0.25). Participants randomized to MBIs showed higher rates of attrition than those randomized to control interventions (odds ratio = 1.98). Several models were not robust to tests of publication bias. Study quality and risk of bias assessment indicated several areas of concern. CONCLUSIONS: MBIs may improve psychological symptoms and quality of life / functioning in veterans. Questionable acceptability and few high-quality studies support the need for rigorous RCTs, potentially adapted to veterans.