Effects of mindfulness-based interventions on psychological distress and mindfulness in incarcerated populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Study Goal
To examine the effects of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) on psychological distress and mindfulness in incarcerated populations.
Results Summary
MBIs showed moderate effects on depressive symptoms and overall psychological distress, large effects on stress, and small effects on anxiety and mindfulness. The overall risk of bias across studies was unclear.
Population
Incarcerated individuals (prison or jail populations)
Effective Dosage
Not specified
Duration
Not specified
Interactions
None mentioned
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | decrease | depressive symptoms | incarcerated populations | moderate effects | showed moderate effects | #1 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | decrease | overall psychological distress | incarcerated populations | moderate effects | showed moderate effects | #2 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | decrease | stress | incarcerated populations | large effects | showed large effects | #3 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | decrease | anxiety | incarcerated populations | small effects | showed small effects | #4 |
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) | increase | mindfulness | incarcerated populations | small effects | showed small effects | #5 |
BACKGROUND: As incarcerated populations report significantly higher prevalence rates for psychological distress than community populations, it is important to have an evidence-based perspective on what reduces psychological distress among people in prison or jail. AIMS: To examine effects of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) on psychological distress, including anxiety, depressive symptoms, stress and overall psychological distress, and on mindfulness in incarcerated populations. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involved a comprehensive search within the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS databases to identify relevant RCTs. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Depending on I RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs met the eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses showed moderate effects of MBIs on depressive symptoms and overall psychological distress, large effects on stress, and small effects on anxiety and mindfulness. The overall risk of bias across studies was unclear. Fewer studies were conducted to compare effects of MBIs to other interventions than TAU. CONCLUSIONS: Future high-quality studies comparing MBIs to other active interventions are needed to understand better whether the former are comparable or superior to other evidence-based treatments in decreasing distress and improving mindfulness in incarcerated populations and/or in which circumstances one may be preferable to the other.