Center for Healthy Minds, University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States.
Center for Healthy Minds, University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States.
Curr Opin Psychol. 2019 Aug;28:179-183. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.022. Epub 2019 Jan 4.
The previous two decades have seen an exponential increase in the number of published scientific investigations on the efficacy of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) training to improve function in a wide range of physical and psychological processes. The resulting body of work provides strong evidence that MBSR has salubrious effects. Yet, when compared directly to groups with training that matches MBSR in factors common to most legitimate interventions, such as learning new skills, expectation of benefit, social engagement and support, and attention from expert instructors, both groups tend to improve to a similar extent. This raises the question of whether there are benefits that are specific to training in mindfulness and if so, why are we not detecting them? Here, we discuss the factors that contribute to the general lack of differentiation between MBSR and active control groups, including the specificity of outcome measures and experimental design, random assignment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the time course and trajectory of change. In addition, we offer recommendations to address these factors in future research.
过去二十年中,发表了大量关于正念减压(MBSR)训练对改善广泛的身体和心理过程功能的疗效的科学研究。这些研究结果提供了强有力的证据表明 MBSR 具有有益的影响。然而,当将 MBSR 与在大多数合法干预中常见的因素(如学习新技能、预期受益、社会参与和支持以及专家指导的关注)相匹配的训练组进行直接比较时,两组往往会以相似的程度得到改善。这就提出了一个问题,即是否存在特定于正念训练的益处,如果是这样,为什么我们没有检测到它们?在这里,我们讨论了导致 MBSR 和积极对照组之间缺乏差异的因素,包括结果测量和实验设计、随机分组、纳入/排除标准以及变化的时间过程和轨迹的特异性。此外,我们还提出了一些建议,以解决未来研究中的这些因素。