Scholarlink

Objectives <p>This narrative review aimed to evaluate the quality and characteristics of digitally delivered mindfulness-based programs (MBP) for cancer patients. It sought to gain a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences in the delivery, components, and success of existing interventions by evaluating the adherence of the program’s components to MBP principles.</p> Method <p>In total, six databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO) were searched from inception to March 2024, and identified papers’ references were reviewed. Two reviewers independently determined article inclusion (original studies, English-language, digital delivery of MBP for adult cancer samples), evaluated adherence to mindfulness principles, and extracted data using a standardized template. Interventions were evaluated for adherence to essential components of MBPs as set out by Crane and colleagues (i.e., program characteristics and facilitator qualifications).</p> Results <p>Overall, 35 published papers reporting on the efficacy of 30 unique interventions were reviewed. Ten interventions adhered to MBP principles, while 20 did not. Sample sizes varied across studies. Interventions demonstrated significant differences in their structure (e.g., length, delivery method, teacher-led/self-guided), efficacy-testing methodology (e.g., randomized controlled trial vs. one-armed trial), and intervention description lengths. However, all interventions demonstrated the ability to significantly change at least one mental health-related patient outcome.</p> Conclusions <p>Future evaluation studies of MBPs must take greater caution when labeling interventions as <i>mindfulness-based</i>, and greater transparency is required for reporting on intervention content, fidelity to established protocols and MBP principles, and facilitator qualifications. Lastly, intervention recommendations made to cancer patients should consider patient preferences and limitations.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Being Mindful of Our Ps and Qs: A Systematic-Narrative Review of the Parallels and Quality of Digital Mindfulness-Based Programs for Cancer Patients

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月12日

查看全文
  • Alexandra Godinho,
  • Sanvitti Dalmia,
  • Siona Phadke,
  • Yasmin Lalani,
  • Aisling Curtin Wach,
  • Punam Rana,
  • Pete Wegier

摘要

Objectives

This narrative review aimed to evaluate the quality and characteristics of digitally delivered mindfulness-based programs (MBP) for cancer patients. It sought to gain a deeper understanding of the similarities and differences in the delivery, components, and success of existing interventions by evaluating the adherence of the program’s components to MBP principles.

Method

In total, six databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO) were searched from inception to March 2024, and identified papers’ references were reviewed. Two reviewers independently determined article inclusion (original studies, English-language, digital delivery of MBP for adult cancer samples), evaluated adherence to mindfulness principles, and extracted data using a standardized template. Interventions were evaluated for adherence to essential components of MBPs as set out by Crane and colleagues (i.e., program characteristics and facilitator qualifications).

Results

Overall, 35 published papers reporting on the efficacy of 30 unique interventions were reviewed. Ten interventions adhered to MBP principles, while 20 did not. Sample sizes varied across studies. Interventions demonstrated significant differences in their structure (e.g., length, delivery method, teacher-led/self-guided), efficacy-testing methodology (e.g., randomized controlled trial vs. one-armed trial), and intervention description lengths. However, all interventions demonstrated the ability to significantly change at least one mental health-related patient outcome.

Conclusions

Future evaluation studies of MBPs must take greater caution when labeling interventions as mindfulness-based, and greater transparency is required for reporting on intervention content, fidelity to established protocols and MBP principles, and facilitator qualifications. Lastly, intervention recommendations made to cancer patients should consider patient preferences and limitations.