Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35224829›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of health psychology2022

Individual differences in meditation interventions: A meta-analytic study.

Ivana Buric, Miguel Farias, Josi M A Driessen, Inti A Brazil

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of health psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ivana BuricDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4375-6222
Miguel FariasBrain, Belief, & Behaviour Lab, Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Coventry University, UK.
Josi M A DriessenDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, The Netherlands.
Inti A BrazilDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMeditation interventions typically show small to moderate effects on health and well-being, but we know little about how these effects vary across individuals. This meta-analytic study investigates the relationship between baseline participant characteristics and the outcomes of meditation.

methodsA systematic search yielded 51 eligible studies with 7782 participants. A combination of subgroup analyses and meta-regression based on the random-effects model were used.

resultsWe found that a higher baseline level of psychopathology or depression was associated with deterioration in mental health after a meditation intervention. On the other hand, participants with higher scores on interpersonal variables, motivation, medical conditions, and mindfulness showed higher levels of positive meditation outcomes. Higher well-being and stress were simultaneously associated with moderate increases in negative and positive meditation outcomes. Participant demographics, psychological traits, self-concept, and length of meditation practice did not significantly influence the response to meditation.

conclusionsOverall, we found that meditation interventions affect participants differently, and identified some of the individual characteristics that should be considered when using meditation interventions.

Indexed as

MeditationMindfulnessHumansIndividualityMental Healthindividual differencesmeditationmeta-analysismindfulnessparticipant characteristics

Identifiers

PMID35224829
PMCPMC9543193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.