↓ Skip to main content

The Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Primary Care: A Meta-Analytic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Family Medicine, November 2015
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 (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
56 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 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
The Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Primary Care: A Meta-Analytic Review
Published in
Annals of Family Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1370/afm.1863
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. M. P. Demarzo, J. Montero-Marin, P. Cuijpers, E. Zabaleta-del-Olmo, K. R. Mahtani, A. Vellinga, C. Vicens, Y. Lopez-del-Hoyo, J. Garcia-Campayo

Abstract

Positive effects have been reported after mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in diverse clinical and nonclinical populations. Primary care is a key health care setting for addressing common chronic conditions, and an effective MBI designed for this setting could benefit countless people worldwide. Meta-analyses of MBIs have become popular, but little is known about their efficacy in primary care. Our aim was to investigate the application and efficacy of MBIs that address primary care patients. We performed a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials addressing the effect of MBIs in adult patients recruited from primary care settings. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. Effect sizes were calculated with the Hedges g in random effects models. The meta-analyses were based on 6 trials having a total of 553 patients. The overall effect size of MBI compared with a control condition for improving general health was moderate (g = 0.48; P = .002), with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 59; P <.05). We found no indication of publication bias in the overall estimates. MBIs were efficacious for improving mental health (g = 0.56; P = .007), with a high heterogeneity (I(2) = 78; P <.01), and for improving quality of life (g = 0.29; P = .002), with a low heterogeneity (I(2) = 0; P >.05). Although the number of randomized controlled trials applying MBIs in primary care is still limited, our results suggest that these interventions are promising for the mental health and quality of life of primary care patients. We discuss innovative approaches for implementing MBIs, such as complex intervention and stepped care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 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 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 166 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 16%
Researcher 25 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 12%
Other 17 10%
Other 62 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 65 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 44 26%
Unspecified 26 15%
Social Sciences 11 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Other 17 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 20 February 2018.
All research outputs
#206,736
of 13,333,137 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Family Medicine
#110
of 1,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,740
of 281,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Family Medicine
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,333,137 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 1,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 281,025 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 16 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 93% of its contemporaries.