ABSTRACT
Objective: The aim of this research was to explore the perspective, language, description, and practices of practitioners who identify as using mindfulness techniques for a range of health and clinical conditions. Methods: This study was guided by a qualitative descriptive methodology. Mindfulness practitioners from a variety of backgrounds that included medical, allied health, complementary and alternative medicine, and traditional Buddhism from across Australia were invited to share their perspectives. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, telephone, and face-to-face which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were thematically analysed. Results: Sixteen mindfulness practitioners from Australia self-nominated to participate in this study. Overall, the interviews revealed similarities, differences and even disagreements between participants from the different modalities regarding mindfulness. Participants from similar disciplines also reported differing perspectives and nuanced opinions. Differences appeared to stem from both participant background, training, and the overall aims of their practice. Conclusion: This research highlights the complexities of what constitutes mindfulness. This study has highlighted, across a broad cohort, that for mindfulness practitioners, their beliefs, aims, and practices are varied and influenced by a range of factors including their ideological perspectives. While the diversity and broad application of mindfulness may be one of its strengths, it may also be its weakness as its value may be diluted due to plurality of understanding and multiplicity in use. This requires careful and considered actions from mindfulness stakeholders.
ABSTRACT
Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP) disorders are a leading cause of disability globally, affecting up to one in three people. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBI) have become a popular treatment for CMSP. The aim of this umbrella review was to synthesise the best available research evidence for the effectiveness of MBI for adults with CMSP. Methods: Eight databases were searched from inception to 30th June 2021 for systematic reviews that examined the use of MBI in CMSP (pain experienced >3 months) in adult populations. Two reviewers independently conducted screening and selection, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality using The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR 2). Outcomes examined were pain, sleep quality, depression, quality of life, physical functioning, and mindfulness. Furthermore, definitions of mindfulness, and intervention parameters (mindfulness practices used, length, frequency of sessions, duration) were also reported. Results: Nineteen systematic reviews (n = 1 rated high quality, n = 1 moderate quality, n = 2 low quality and n = 15 critically low quality) examining 194 primary studies met the review criteria. Although some promising evidence was identified for the use of MBI in CMSP, the general low quality and widespread heterogeneity of included SRs and made it difficult to reach a definitive conclusion. Differences in results and outcomes amongst systematic reviews that, in many cases, had a high overlap of included RCTs, suggests fundamental differences in critical design elements that make data difficult to compare. Conclusion: This umbrella review found mixed results on the effectiveness of MBI for the management of CMSP across a range of outcomes (pain, sleep quality, depression, quality of life, physical functioning, mindfulness). Definitions of MBI varied as did parameters, which may have contributed to these mixed results. More rigorous research with stringent MBI protocols is required.