Contemplative Practice: What the Meta-Analyses Report, Including the Null Results
Meditation programs had moderate evidence of improving anxiety and depression (Goyal 2014), mindfulness apps reduced perceived stress, anxiety and depression with no significant effect on distress (Gál 2020), mindfulness-based programs reduced rumination, stress, depression and anxiety against passive control (Querstret 2020); short-term training did not improve attention or executive function (Lao 2016), burnout results were more equivocal (Lomas 2018), and immune effects are tentative (Black 2016).
Start short, and if distress persists, direct to a qualified teacher or clinician.
- Persistent hopelessness, emptiness, or a sense that life is meaningless lasting more than two weeks: encourage contact with a licensed mental-health professional
- Any thoughts of self-harm or suicide, or feeling life is not worth living: direct the user to a crisis line or emergency services immediately
- Acute existential or spiritual crisis causing marked distress or inability to function: refer to a counselor, chaplain, or clinician
- Signs the user is using reflection to avoid unresolved grief, trauma, or clinical depression: recommend professional support
What the evidence says
The sources are meta-analyses and systematic reviews of meditation and mindfulness programs. Goyal 2014 (meta-analysis of trials in diverse adult clinical populations) reports moderate evidence that mindfulness meditation programs improved anxiety (effect size 0.38 at 8 weeks) and depression (0.30 at 8 weeks); Gál 2020 (meta-analysis) reports mindfulness apps had significant effects on perceived stress (g = 0.46), anxiety (0.28), depression (0.33) and psychological well-being (0.29), no significant effect on distress or general well-being, and concludes the apps seem promising with results to be interpreted carefully; Querstret 2020 (meta-analysis) reports mindfulness-based programs reduced rumination and worry, stress, depression and anxiety and improved well-being against passive control in non-clinical samples; Slemp 2019 (meta-analysis) reports contemplative interventions reduced employee distress with small to moderate effects, with publication bias likely inflating them. Physiological signals: Schutte 2014 (meta-analysis) reports mindfulness meditation increased telomerase activity (d = 0.46); Black 2016 (systematic review) reports possible effects on inflammation and immunity that are tentative and heterogeneous. Null and equivocal results: Lao 2016 (systematic review) reports short-term mindfulness training did not improve attention or executive function, with preliminary evidence for working memory and cognitive flexibility; Lomas 2018 (systematic review) reports mindfulness generally associated with positive outcomes in healthcare professionals but more equivocal for burnout. Csala 2021 (systematic review) reports yoga practice positively associated with spirituality.
- Mindfulness is not about stopping thoughts or emptying the mind
- It is a secular attention skill, though it has contemplative roots
- A wandering mind is expected; noticing and returning is the practice
- Do not prescribe, rank, or endorse any specific religion, deity, faith tradition, or belief system
- Do not claim these practices cure, treat, reverse, or prevent any disease or mental illness
- Do not make claims about an afterlife, the soul, the supernatural, or any metaphysical truth
- Do not present correlational or observational findings as proof that the practice causes health outcomes
- Do not position these practices as a substitute for medical care or psychological treatment
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 9 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- No source states a certainty rating.
What each source measured and concluded (9)
- What it measured
- Stress-related outcomes (anxiety, depression, stress/distress, mood, quality of life, etc.)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 47 trials with 3,515 participants
- What it measured
- Well-being and mental health related outcomes
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 34 trials (N=7,566) of 2637 records
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Mindfulness apps seem promising for improving well-being and mental health, but results should be interpreted carefully due to few studies, uncertain risk of bias, and heterogeneity
- What it measured
- Psychological health and well-being outcomes of Mindfulness-Based Programs (MBSR, MBCT)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 49 studies (n=4,733)
- What it measured
- Reduction in psychological distress
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- k=119 studies; N=6,044
- What it measured
- Telomerase activity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 190 participants across 4 randomized controlled trials
- What it measured
- Immune system parameters (inflammatory proteins, gene expression, immune cell count, cell aging, antibody response)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review of randomized controlled trials
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Findings suggest possible effects on markers of inflammation, cell-mediated immunity, and biological aging, but results are tentative with substantial heterogeneity
- What it measured
- Well-being outcomes (burnout, distress, anxiety, depression, stress)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 81 papers, 3,805 participants
- What it measured
- Neuropsychological outcomes (attention, memory, executive function)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 18 studies
- What it measured
- Relationship between yoga practice and spirituality
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review (PRISMA) of empirical (quantitative and qualitative) studies
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 30 studies
Each source below is shown with its study design and a link to the original study, or, where it is not a completed research paper, with what kind of record it is; those are not counted. This is the audit trail.
Why do some records show a record type instead of a study design?
A study design is shown for a completed, peer-reviewed paper. A registered protocol, a preprint, a conference abstract, a referee report or a book chapter has not been through peer review as a finished paper, so it is labelled for what it is, and it is counted in no source count. Where a record could not be confirmed as a completed paper at all, it says so rather than guessing. They all stay in the list, and their DOI still resolves, because the count of what was screened is part of the audit trail.
- Protocol / registration A registered plan for a review or trial, not its results.
- Preprint Posted by its authors before peer review.
- Conference abstract A conference summary rather than a peer-reviewed paper.
- Peer-review report A referee's report on a paper, not the paper itself.
- Guideline / position stand A recommendation derived from evidence, which is a step further from the data than the evidence itself.
- Book chapter A chapter in a scholarly book rather than a journal paper.
- Type not recorded Our record does not say what kind of publication this is, so it is counted in no source count. That is a gap in our data, not a judgement about the research.