ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025
Prevalence and predictors of meditation use in Australia and New Zealand: results from a nationally representative survey.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effectiveness and Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness of Regular Meditation for Improving Quality of Life: Protocol for a Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Contemplative practices serve as complementary mental health strategies in nationally representative samples from Australia and New Zealand.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A cross-sectional survey on depersonalization/derealization and meditation-induced alterations of the self.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The psychometric performance of the EQ-HWB-9 for measuring health and wellbeing in a general population sample from Australia and New Zealand.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeditation use has grown significantly in recent decades. However, population prevalence data is largely absent in Australasia.
methodsWe surveyed adults in Australia (n = 2,072) and New Zealand (n = 571) in 2023, using census-informed quotas for age, gender, ancestry/ethnicity, region and income. We calculated lifetime and past year meditation use estimates and conducted univariable analyses and multivariable logistic regression to investigate predictive factors.
resultsWe estimate that 41.5% of Australian (~ 8.6 M) and 35.7% of New Zealand (~ 1.5 M) adults have ever used meditation, while 32.8% (6.8 M) and 24.9% (1.0 M), respectively, used meditation in the past year. In multivariable regression, younger age and higher education were consistent predictors of past-year meditation use in both countries. In Australia, additional predictors included female gender, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander ancestry, unmet need for mental health care, and receipt of complementary care. In New Zealand, identifying as LGBTQIA + was a strong positive predictor, while not receiving medical care was associated with lower odds of meditation use. Over 21.7% of Australian (~ 1.5 M) and 17.6% of New Zealand meditators (~ 0.2 M) experienced a meditation-related adverse effect.
conclusionsBased on currently available data from a limited number of countries, Australia and New Zealand appear to have relatively high rates of meditation use, with meditation being used as an adjunct and/or alternative to mental health services. There is a need for more research into specific meditation practices and their application to mental health. Clinical guidelines on best-practice for meditation use would help to maximise benefits and minimise harms. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.