↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of the effects of mindfulness interventions on cortisol

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Health Psychology, July 2016
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
twitter
34 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 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
A systematic review of the effects of mindfulness interventions on cortisol
Published in
Journal of Health Psychology, July 2016
DOI 10.1177/1359105315569095
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen O’Leary, Siobhan O’Neill, Samantha Dockray

Abstract

Cortisol is increasingly included in examinations of mindfulness intervention effects as an indicator of efficacy; however, the association of cortisol and mindfulness has yet to be rigorously evaluated. A systematic review of six studies examining mindfulness intervention effects on cortisol was conducted. Inconsistent results were found for mindfulness effects on cortisol. Significant changes in cortisol levels were observed in within-participants studies but not observed in randomised controlled trial designs. Mindfulness may influence cortisol, but findings are inconclusive. Mindfulness pathways and methodological differences influence variations in mindfulness effects. Robust protocols are needed to adequately examine mindfulness effects on cortisol.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 260 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 12%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 9%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Other 61 23%
Unknown 40 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 99 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 10%
Neuroscience 22 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 5%
Other 30 11%
Unknown 52 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 106. 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 22 February 2021.
All research outputs
#295,613
of 21,298,337 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Health Psychology
#52
of 2,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,907
of 233,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Health Psychology
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,298,337 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 2,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 233,614 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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.