↓ Skip to main content

Unwanted effects: Is there a negative side of meditation? A multicentre survey

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
47 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Unwanted effects: Is there a negative side of meditation? A multicentre survey
Published in
PLoS ONE, September 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0183137
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ausiàs Cebolla, Marcelo Demarzo, Patricia Martins, Joaquim Soler, Javier Garcia-Campayo

Abstract

Despite the long-term use and evidence-based efficacy of meditation and mindfulness-based interventions, there is still a lack of data about the possible unwanted effects (UEs) of these practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of UEs among meditation practitioners, considering moderating factors such as the type, frequency, and lifetime duration of the meditation practices. An online survey was developed and disseminated through several websites, such as Spanish-, English- and Portuguese-language scientific research portals related to mindfulness and meditation. After excluding people who did not answer the survey correctly or completely and those who had less than two months of meditation experience, a total of 342 people participated in the study. However, only 87 reported information about UEs. The majority of the practitioners were women from Spain who were married and had a University education level. Practices were more frequently informal, performed on a daily basis, and followed by focused attention (FA). Among the participants, 25.4% reported UEs, showing that severity varies considerably. The information requested indicated that most of the UEs were transitory and did not lead to discontinuing meditation practice or the need for medical assistance. They were more frequently reported in relation to individual practice, during focused attention meditation, and when practising for more than 20 minutes and alone. The practice of body awareness was associated with UEs to a lesser extent, whereas focused attention was associated more with UEs. This is the first large-scale, multi-cultural study on the UEs of meditation. Despite its limitations, this study suggests that UEs are prevalent and transitory and should be further studied. We recommend the use of standardized questionnaires to assess the UEs of meditation practices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 235 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 42 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 14%
Student > Master 30 13%
Other 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 9%
Other 51 22%
Unknown 37 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 96 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 7%
Neuroscience 13 6%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 50 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 130. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2021.
All research outputs
#184,057
of 17,687,978 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#3,114
of 166,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,735
of 280,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#90
of 2,858 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,687,978 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 166,274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,858 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.