Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42399863›Full record

Trial reportBMC complementary medicine and therapies2026

Effectiveness of shared meditation involving cancer patients, health professionals and third persons on well-being and psychosocial skills: a randomised study.

Virginie Prevost, François Christy, Alexandra Leconte, Marie Fernette, Carine Segura, Titi Tran, Bénédicte Clarisse

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06041607 (Shared Meditation Involving People With Cancer, Carers and Third Parties), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06041607 nacompletednot on this map

Shared Meditation Involving People With Cancer, Carers and Third Parties: Any Added Value Compared With Meditation Conducted With Patients? IMPLIC 2, a Randomised Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre Francois BaclesseRan2024 to 2024Enrolled96ConditionsPatients With CancerArmsShared meditation, Meditation with patients oly
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Virginie PrevostNormandie Univ, UNICAEN, INSERM, ANTICIPE, Caen, 14000, France. virginie.prevost@unicaen.fr.
François ChristyNormandie Univ, UNICAEN, INSERM, ANTICIPE, Caen, 14000, France.
Alexandra LeconteCentre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Marie FernetteCentre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Carine SeguraCentre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Titi TranCentre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.
Bénédicte ClarisseCentre François Baclesse, Caen, 14000, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMindfulness-based interventions are recommended for improving well-being. We evaluated the potential added value of shared meditation involving patients with cancer, health professionals, and third persons compared with patient-only meditation.

methodsWe designed a randomised controlled trial (CONSORT guidelines) to assess the benefit of shared meditation, where patients with cancer (target population) were assigned to receive the meditation programme in groups involving caregivers and thirds persons (experimental arm) or in groups of patients only (control arm). The study involved 97 volunteers: 65 patients, 16 caregivers, and 16 third persons (neither carers nor patients). Patients were randomised between 'Shared' meditation (33 patients), and 'Patient' meditation (32 patients). A dedicated programme on mindfulness and compassion (12 weekly 2 h-sessions and 2 half-day retreats) was administered. The primary endpoint was the sense of self-efficacy (Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)). Perceived stress was measured by the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), one of those subscales also focused on self-efficacy. Qualities of mindfulness, self-compassion, participants' perception of change in their quality of life, and satisfaction following the programme were also assessed.

resultsBoth patient arms experienced substantial improvement in self-efficacy scores (GSES) following the programme, without a significant difference between the arms. As secondary endpoints, perceived stress and mindfulness qualities were significantly improved in both arms, as well as several self-compassion dimensions (self-kindness, sense of common humanity, and mindfulness dimensions). Patients in the shared meditation arm showed a significant improvement in self-efficacy (PSS) and a reduction in feelings of isolation (self-compassion scale), which was not significant in patients in the patient-only arm. Patients greatly appreciated shared meditation, as evidenced by adherence to the programme and satisfaction assessments. Participants reported a perception of improvement in their quality of life.

conclusionThe added value of shared meditation compared to patient-only meditation was not demonstrated in terms of sense of self-efficacy (GSES). Shared meditation specifically improved perceived self-efficacy (PSS subscale) and reduced the feeling of isolation. This approach could constitute a useful tool for patients to better cope with cancer and to break out of the context of illness, with the understanding that suffering is part of shared human experience.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov. NCT06041607, registered on 09/18/2023. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06041607 .

Indexed as

CaregiversHealth PersonnelMeditationMindfulnessNeoplasmsAdultAgedEmpathyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychological Well-BeingQuality of LifeSelf EfficacyStress, PsychologicalCancer patientsHealth professionalsMindfulnessRandomised studySelf-efficacyWell-being

Identifiers

PMID42399863
PMCPMC13617686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.