Schultz Michael B
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Nursing, Carrington Hall, CB # 7460, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7460.
Mindfulness (N Y). 2018 Aug;9(4):1028-1036. doi: 10.1007/s12671-017-0860-5. Epub 2017 Nov 25.
Whether one kind of mindfulness applies to all situations or only some (i.e., scope) is controversial. Eating may not be an everyday behavior subsumed under everyday mindfulness. To rigorously test the efficacy of mindfulness-based weight loss interventions, researchers must use scales that measure the type of mindfulness manipulated by the intervention. The mixed findings of mindfulness-based weight loss intervention studies may be related to the lack of conceptual congruence (i.e., the pairing of interventions and measures of the same scope). The aims of this systematic review were to: (a) describe the scopes of the mindfulness interventions and measures used in mindfulness-based weight loss intervention studies; and (b) compare conceptual congruence to the statistical significance of mindfulness and weight outcomes of each study. All articles published prior to December 31, 2016 were retrieved from PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. After screening and full-text review, eight articles were included in the review. Five studies paired mindfulness-based eating interventions with general mindfulness measures; two studies paired mindfulness-based eating interventions with eating-specific mindfulness measures; and one study paired a general mindfulness intervention with a general mindfulness measure. There was no apparent relationship between conceptual congruence and the statistical significance of the mindfulness and weight outcomes. However, given other findings and the limitations of this review, further investigation is needed. In particular, future studies should include mediation analyses using both general and eating-specific mindfulness measures.
一种正念是否适用于所有情况或仅适用于某些情况（即范围）存在争议。饮食可能并非日常正念所涵盖的日常行为。为了严格测试基于正念的减肥干预措施的效果，研究人员必须使用能够测量由干预所操控的正念类型的量表。基于正念的减肥干预研究结果不一，可能与缺乏概念一致性有关（即干预措施与相同范围的测量方法不匹配）。本系统评价的目的是：（a）描述基于正念的减肥干预研究中所使用的正念干预措施和测量方法的范围；（b）将概念一致性与每项研究中正念和体重结果的统计学显著性进行比较。从PubMed、CINAHL、PsycINFO和Embase数据库中检索了2016年12月31日前发表的所有文章。经过筛选和全文审查，8篇文章被纳入本评价。5项研究将基于正念的饮食干预措施与一般正念测量方法配对；2项研究将基于正念的饮食干预措施与特定于饮食的正念测量方法配对；1项研究将一般正念干预措施与一般正念测量方法配对。概念一致性与正念和体重结果的统计学显著性之间没有明显关系。然而，鉴于其他研究结果以及本评价的局限性，仍需要进一步研究。特别是，未来的研究应包括使用一般和特定于饮食的正念测量方法进行中介分析。
