Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 199–213 | Cite as

Mindfulness Meditation for Chronic Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • Lara Hilton
  • Susanne Hempel
  • Brett A. Ewing
  • Eric Apaydin
  • Lea Xenakis
  • Sydne Newberry
  • Ben Colaiaco
  • Alicia Ruelaz Maher
  • Roberta M. Shanman
  • Melony E. Sorbero
  • Margaret A. Maglione
Open Access
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Chronic pain patients increasingly seek treatment through mindfulness meditation.

Purpose

This study aims to synthesize evidence on efficacy and safety of mindfulness meditation interventions for the treatment of chronic pain in adults.

Method

We conducted a systematic review on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Outcomes included pain, depression, quality of life, and analgesic use.

Results

Thirty-eight RCTs met inclusion criteria; seven reported on safety. We found low-quality evidence that mindfulness meditation is associated with a small decrease in pain compared with all types of controls in 30 RCTs. Statistically significant effects were also found for depression symptoms and quality of life.

Conclusions

While mindfulness meditation improves pain and depression symptoms and quality of life, additional well-designed, rigorous, and large-scale RCTs are needed to decisively provide estimates of the efficacy of mindfulness meditation for chronic pain.

Keywords

Chronic pain Mindfulness Meditation Systematic review 

Introduction

Chronic pain, often defined as pain lasting longer than 3 months or past the normal time for tissue healing [1], can lead to significant medical, social, and economic consequences, relationship issues, lost productivity, and larger health care costs. The Institute of Medicine recognizes pain as a significant public health problem that costs our nation at least $560–635 billion annually, including costs of health care and lost productivity [2]. Further, chronic pain is frequently accompanied by psychiatric disorders such as pain medication addiction and depression that make treatment complicated [3]. The high prevalence and refractory nature of chronic pain, in conjunction with the negative consequences of pain medication dependence, has led to increased interest in treatment plans that include adjunctive therapy or alternatives to medication [4]. One such modality that pain patients are using is mindfulness meditation. Based on ancient Eastern meditation practices, mindfulness facilitates an attentional stance of detached observation. It is characterized by paying attention to the present moment with openness, curiosity, and acceptance [5, 6]. Mindfulness meditation is thought to work by refocusing the mind on the present and increasing awareness of one’s external surroundings and inner sensations, allowing the individual to step back and reframe experiences. Current research using neuroimaging to elucidate neurological mechanisms underlying effects of mindfulness has focused on brain structures such as the posterior cingulate cortex, which appear to be involved in self-referential processing [7, 8]. Clinical uses of mindfulness include applications in substance abuse [9], tobacco cessation [10], stress reduction [11], and treatment of chronic pain [12, 13, 14].

Early mindfulness studies in pain patients showed promising outcomes on pain symptoms, mood disturbance, anxiety, and depression, as well as pain-related drug utilization [5]. Numerous systematic reviews on the effects of mindfulness meditation have been published in recent years. Of those that report pain outcomes, several have focused on specific types of pain such as low back pain [13], fibromyalgia [15], or somatization disorder [16]. Others were not limited to RCTs [14, 17]. There have been several comprehensive reviews focused on controlled trials of mindfulness interventions for chronic pain including a review [4] that showed improvements in depressive symptoms and coping, another review [18] on mindfulness for chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, and musculoskeletal pain that showed small positive effects for pain, and the most recent review [19] on various pain conditions which found improvements in pain, pain acceptance, quality of life, and functional status. Authors of these reviews echoed concerns that there is limited evidence for efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for patients with chronic pain because of methodological issues. They have concluded that additional high-quality research was needed before a recommendation for the use of mindfulness meditation for chronic pain symptoms could be made.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects and safety of mindfulness meditation, as an adjunctive or monotherapy to treat individuals with chronic pain due to migraine, headache, back pain, osteoarthritis, or neuralgic pain compared with treatment as usual, waitlists, no treatment, or other active treatments. Pain was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included depression, quality of life, and analgesic use. The systematic review protocol is registered in an international registry for systematic reviews (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015025052).

Methods

Search Strategy

We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for English-language-randomized controlled trials from inception through June 2016. We combined pain conditions and design terms with the following mindfulness search terms: “Mindfulness” [Mesh]) or “Meditation” [Mesh] or mindfulness* or mindfulness-based or MBSR or MBCT or M-BCT or meditation or meditat* or Vipassana or satipaṭṭhāna or anapanasati or Zen or Pranayama or Sudarshan or Kriya or zazen or shambhala or buddhis*.” In addition to this search and the reference mining of all included studies identified through it, we reference mined prior systematic reviews and retrieved all studies included therein.

Eligibility Criteria

Parallel group, individual or cluster RCTs of adults who report chronic pain were included. Studies where the author defined chronic pain and studies in patients reporting pain for a minimum of 3 months were included. Studies were required to involve mindfulness meditation, either as an adjunctive or monotherapy; studies testing other meditation interventions such as yoga, tai chi, qigong, and transcendental meditation techniques without reference to mindfulness were excluded. Mindfulness interventions that did not require formal meditation, such as acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) were also excluded. Only studies that reported pain measures or change in analgesic use were included. Dissertations and conference abstracts were excluded.

Procedures

Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts of retrieved citations—following a pilot session to ensure similar interpretation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Citations judged as potentially eligible by one or both reviewers were obtained as full text. The full text publications were then dually screened against the specified inclusion criteria. The flow of citations throughout this process was documented in an electronic database, and reasons for exclusion of full-text publications were recorded. Data abstraction was also conducted in dual. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool [20]. Other biases related to the US Preventive Services Task Force’s (USPSTF) criteria for internal validity of included studies were assessed [21, 22]. These criteria were used to rate the quality of evidence as good, fair, or poor for each included study.

Meta-analytic Techniques

When sufficient data were available and statistical heterogeneity was below agreed thresholds [20], we performed meta-analysis to pool efficacy results across included studies for the outcomes of interest and present a forest plot for the main meta-analysis. We used the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis using unadjusted means and measures of dispersion [23, 24, 25]. For studies reporting multiple pain outcomes, we used specific pain measures, such as the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) for the main meta-analysis rather than the pain subscale of the SF-36, and average or general pain measures rather than situational measures such as pain at the time of assessment. Due to the small number of adverse events reported, quantitative analysis was not conducted. We conducted subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to address whether there were differences in effect sizes between different interventions types, populations, or when used as monotherapy versus an adjunctive therapy. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach [22, 26] by which a determination of high, moderate, low, or very low was made for each major outcome [27].

Results

Description of Included Studies

We identified 744 citations through searches of electronic databases and 11 additional records identified through other sources (see Fig. 1). Full texts were obtained for 125 citations identified as potentially eligible by two independent reviewers; 38 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Details of study characteristics are displayed in Table 1 and effects for individual studies are displayed in Table 2.
Fig. 1

Literature flow diagram

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

Study

Sample size

Location

Source of pain

% male

Age (M (SD))

Intervention

Comparators

Quality rating

Astin et al. [53]

128

USA

Fibromyalgia

0.7

48 (10.6)

MBSR and Qigong for 8 weeks

Education support group

Poor

Bakhshani et al. [61]

40

Middle East

Migraine, headache

35.1

Intervention, 30 (9.08); control, 31 (9.57)

MBSR for 8 weeks with TAU

TAU

Poor

Banth and Ardebil [60]

88

Middle East

Back pain

0

40.3(8.2)

MBSR for 8 weeks with TAU

TAU

Poor

Brown and Jones [54]

40

Europe

Fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, other musculoskeletal

26

Intervention, 48 (10); control, 45 (12)

Mindfulness-based pain management program: breath awareness, body awareness, gentle movement, pain management, compassion training for 8 weeks

TAU

Poor

Cash et al. [39]

91

USA

Fibromyalgia

0

Not reported

MBSR for 8 weeks

Waitlist control group

Fair

Cathcart et al. [40]

58

Australia

Headache

37

Intervention, 46 (13.10); control, 45 (14.2)

Brief mindfulness-based therapy, based on MBSR and MBCT for 3 weeks

Waitlist control group

Fair

Cherkin et al. [38]

342

USA

Back pain

34.3

49 (12.3)

MBSR for 8 weeks with TAU

CBT with TAU or TAU alone

Good

Davis and Zautra [42]

79

USA

Fibromyalgia

2

46; range = 22–81

Mindful social emotional regulation internet intervention in 12 modules for 6 weeks

Healthy lifestyle tips via internet

Fair

Day et al. [41]

36

USA

Migraine, headache

11

42 (12.0)

MBCT for 8 weeks adapted for headache pain with TAU

Waitlist control group

Fair

Dowd et al. [43]

124

Europe

Headache, back pain, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, nerve pain, neuropathy

10

45 (12.25)

MBCT computerized: included audio-recorded meditation, psychoeducation, mindfulness, and a cognitive and behavioral change for 6 weeks

Psychoeducation

Fair

Esmer et al. [55]

40

USA

Back pain, leg pain

56

Intervention, 55 (11.2); control, 58 (9.5)

MBSR for 8 weeks with TAU

TAU

Poor

Fjorback et al. [32]

120

Europe

Bodily distress syndrome

20

Intervention, 38 (9); control, 40 (8)

MBSR for 8 weeks with TAU

Enhanced TAU of 2-h specialist medical care and brief CBT

Good

Fogarty et al. [30]

51

New Zealand

Rheumatoid arthritis

12

Intervention, 52 (12); control, 55 (13)

MBSR for 8 weeks and TAU

TAU

Good

Garland et al. [44]

115

USA

Osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia

32

48 (14)

MORE: multimodal intervention of mindfulness, CBT, positive psychology for 8 weeks with TAU

Support group with TAU

Fair

Gaylord et al. [45]

75

USA

Irritable bowel syndrome

0

Intervention, 45 (12.55); control, 41 (14.68)

Mindfulness training tailored for IBS population for 8 weeks with TAU

TAU and support group

Fair

Jay et al. [50]

112

Europe

Musculoskeletal pain

0

Intervention, 45.5 (9.0); control, 47.6 (8.2)

Mindfulness pain and stress workplace program for 10 weeks

TAU

Fair

Johns et al. [37]

71

USA

Cancer

9.9

Intervention, 56 (9.9); control, 56 (12.7)

MBSR for 8 weeks

Psychoeducation support group

Good

Kanter et al. [62]

20

USA

Interstitial cystitis, bladder pain syndrome

0

Intervention, 46 (15.2); control, 44 (13.9)

MBSR for 8 weeks with TAU

TAU

Poor

Kearney et al. [51]

55

USA

Gulf War illness

85.5

Intervention,51 (6.8); control, 48 (7.4)

MBSR for 8 weeks with TAU

TAU

Fair

la Cour and Petersen [46]

109

Europe

Varied, non-specific pain

15

Intervention, 47 (12.42); control, 49 (12.20)

MBSR: Standard program modified for chronic pain patients for 8 weeks with co-intervention TAU

Waitlist, TAU

Fair

Lengacher et al. [52]

322

USA

Cancer

0

56.6 (9.7)

MBSR modified for breast cancer patients for 6 weeks with TAU

TAU

Fair

Ljotsson et al. [33]

85

Europe

Irritable bowel syndrome

15

35 (9.4)

MBCT protocol via Internet for IBS group treatment for 10 weeks

Online discussion forum

Good

Ljotsson et al. [34]

195

Europe

Irritable bowel syndrome

21

39 (11.1)

MBCT protocol via internet for IBS group treatment for 10 weeks

Online stress management program

Good

Meize-Grochowski et al. [56]

31

USA

Postherpetic neuralgia

44

Overall, 72 (9.6)

MBSR: 1 h instruction focusing breathing while seated comfortably, daily meditation using CD, phone call reminders, daily journal, for 6 weeks with TAU

TAU

Poor

Morone et al. [47]

37

USA

Back pain

43

Intervention, 74 (6.1); controls, 76 (5.0)

Modified MBSR: (1) the body scan; (2) sitting practice; (3) walking meditation for 8 weeks

Waitlist controls

Fair

Morone et al. [57]

40

USA

Back pain

37

Intervention, 78(7.1); control, 73(6.2)

Modified MBSR: (1) the body scan; (2) sitting practice; (3) walking meditation for 8 weeks; Over the counter and prescribed medications

Over the counter and prescribed medications

Poor

Morone et al. [36]

282

USA

Back pain

33.7

74.5 (6.6)

MBSR for 8 weeks

Health education program

Good

Omidi and Zargar [58]

66

Middle East

Headache

20

Intervention, 35 (2.41); control, 32 (3.2)

MBSR for 8 weeks

TAU

Poor

Parra-Delgado and Latorre-Postigo [31]

33

Europe

Fibromyalgia

0

53 (10.08)

MBCT for 12 weeks with TAU

TAU

Good

Plews-Ogan et al. [59]

30

USA

Musculoskeletal pain

23

47 (NR)

MBSR for 8 weeks

TAU (this group used in analysis) or massage

Poor

Rahmani and Talepasand [63]

24

Middle East

Cancer

0

Intervention, 43 (3.07); control, 45 (3.28)

MBSR and group conscious yoga for 8 weeks

No treatment

Poor

Schmidt et al. [48]

177

Europe

Fibromyalgia

0

53 (9.6)

Modified MBSR: mindfulness, yoga, and social interaction topics for 8 weeks

Waitlist (this group used in analysis), relaxation and stretching support group

Fair

Teixeira [64]

22

USA

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy

25

75 (10.8)

Modified MBSR: mindfulness meditation instruction and compact disk 5 days/week over a 4-week period for 4 weeks

Nutritional information and food diary

Poor

Wells et al. [49]

19

USA

Migraine

11

Intervention, 46 (17); control, 45 (12)

MBSR for 8 weeks

TAU

Fair

Wong [65]

100

Asia

Unspecified

NR

NR

MBSR for 8 weeks

Multidisciplinary education program

Poor

Wong [28]

100

Asia

Unspecified

NR

48 (7.84)

MBSR for 8 weeks

Multidisciplinary pain intervention

Good

Zautra et al. [29]

144

USA

Rheumatoid arthritis

32

Men, 62 (NR); women, 51 (NR)

Mindfulness meditation based on MBSR and emotion regulation therapy offered in sessions and home practice for 8 weeks

Education group (this group used in analysis), cognitive behavioral therapy

Good

Zgierska et al. [35]

35

USA

Back pain

20

51.8 (9.7)

MBCT-manualized program 6 days/week for 8 weeks with TAU

TAU and opioid therapy

Good

Note. Age (M (SD)) age mean (standard deviation, range, or not reported), CBT cognitive behavioral therapy, IBS irritable bowel syndrome, MBCT mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, MBSR mindfulness-based stress reduction, MORE mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement, NR not reported, TAU treatment as usual

Table 2

Effects for individual studies

Study

Outcome

Measure

% pain change Tx Grp

% pain change Ctrl Grp

SMD (95 % CI)

Follow-up (week)

Astin et al. [53]

Pain

SF-36 pain score

−31.58 %

−34.39 %

0.02 (−0.47, 0.5)

14

−28.79 %

−35.03 %

−0.04 (−0.52, 0.45)

24

−23.22 %

−29.94 %

−0.05 (−0.54, 0.43)

8

Depression

BDI

0.15 (−0.35, 0.64)

24

Bakhshani et al. [61]

Pain

 

Significant improvement in pain, quality of life; sample size of groups at follow-up not reported

   

Quality of life

Banth and Ardebil [60]

Pain

MPQ

−47.92 %

−11.62 %

2.5 (1.94, 3.07)

12

Quality of life

SF-12 mental health

1.11 (0.65, 1.56)

8

1.49 (1.01, 1.97)

12

SF-12 physical health

1.34 (0.88, 1.81)

8

1.86 (1.36, 2.37)

12

Brown and Jones [54]

Pain

Laser pain unpleasantness

9.26 %

6.78 %

0.24 (−0.51, 0.98)

24

Quality of life, mental

SF-36 mental composite

1.16 (0.36, 1.96)

24

Quality of life, physical

SF-36 physical composite

−0.42 (−1.17, 0.33)

24

Cash et al. [39]

Pain

VAS

−4.26 %

−5.92 %

0 (−0.42, 0.41)

16

−11.31 %

−1.01 %

0.32 (−0.1, 0.74)

8

Cathcart et al. [40]

Pain

Headache intensity

−4.42 %

−11.16 %

0.08 (−0.52, 0.69)

8

Cherkin et al. [38]

Pain

 

Significant reductions in pain and disability; Reported only adjusted data

   

Disability

Davis and Zautra [42]

Pain

Pain

−0.93 %

−1.52 %

−0.24 (−0.69, 0.2)

6

Day et al. [41]

Pain

BPI intensity

−11.98 %

−6.53 %

−0.01 (−0.66, 0.65)

8

Dowd et al. [43]

Pain

Average pain

1.26 %

−11.77 %

0 (−0.36, 0.35)

6

7.18 %

1.71 %

−0.19 (−0.54, 0.17)

30

Esmer et al. [55]

Pain

VAS

−29.74 %

−0.82 %

0.3 (−0.5, 1.1)

12

Disability

Roland-Morris disability

0.90 ( 0.06 , 1.74 )

12

Fjorback et al. [32]

Pain

SF-36 bodily pain

−31.25 %

−7.38 %

0.15 (−0.23, 0.53)

12

−44.12 %

−12.08 %

0.23 (−0.18, 0.63)

36

−34.93 %

−31.54 %

−0.1 (−0.51, 0.31)

60

Quality of life, mental

SF-36 mental composite

−0.04 (−0.42, 0.34)

60

Quality of life, physical

SF-36 physical composite

0.22 (−0.16, 0.61)

60

Fogarty et al. [30]

Pain

  

Significant reduction reported; no usable data as only reported change within group

  

Garland et al. [44]

Pain

BPI

−12.32 %

11.11 %

0.76 (0.38, 1.14)

20

−10.66 %

4.01 %

0.57 (0.19, 0.94)

8

Gaylord et al. [45]

Pain

Pain severity

−42.96 %

−14.73 %

0.53 (0.06, 0.99)

20

−35.83 %

−5.36 %

0.54 (0.08, 1)

8

Depression

BSI-18 depression

0.03 (−0.42, 0.49)

20

Quality of life, general

IBS quality of life

0.25 (−0.21, 0.7)

20

Jay et al. [50]

Pain

 

Significant reduction reported; no usable data as only reported differences

   

Johns et al. [37]

Pain

BPI

−35.19 %

−30.90 %

−0.07 (−0.54, 0.41)

24

Kanter et al. [62]

Pain

VAS

−16.95 %

−19.30 %

−0.14 (−1.05, 0.77)

8

Quality of life

SF-12 MCS

  

0.7 (−0.24, 1.64)

8

SF-12 PCS

  

−0.02 (−0.93, 0.89)

8

Kearney et al. [51]

Pain

MPQ

−23.87 %

−5.67 %

0.41 (−0.13, 0.94)

24

Depression

PHQ

0.34 (−0.2, 0.87)

8

0.47 (−0.07, 1)

24

la Cour and Petersen [46]

Pain

BPI

−1.05 %

−6.77 %

−0.16 (−0.53, 0.22)

8

Depression

HADS

0.37 (−0.01, 0.75)

8

Quality of life, mental

SF-36 mental composite

0.53 (0.15, 0.91)

8

Quality of life, physical

SF-36 physical composite

0.00 (−0.38, 0.38)

8

Lengacher et al. [52]

Pain

BPI

−25.92 %

−10.63 %

0.02 (−0.2, 0.25)

12

Depression

CES-D score

0.12 (−0.11, 0.35)

6

0.04 (−0.18, 0.27)

12

Quality of life

QoL MOS SF-36

−0.05 (−0.28, 0.17)

6

0.01 (−0.21, 0.24)

12

Ljotsson et al. [33]

Pain

Total pain

−46.15 %

0.00 %

0.64 (0.19, 1.08)

10

Depression

MADRS-S

0.43 (−0.02, 0.87)

10

Quality of life, general

IBS quality of life

0.95 (0.49, 1.41)

10

Disability

Sheehan disability scale

0.47 ( 0.02, 0.91)

10

Ljotsson et al. [34]

Pain

  

Significant reduction IBS pain/discomfort; no usable data as did not report pain measure

24

 

Depression

HADS

0 (−0.28, 0.28)

24

Quality of life, general

IBS quality of life

0.51 (0.22, 0.8)

24

Meize-Grochowski et al. [56]

Pain

SF MPQ—total pain

−8.57 %

−4.17 %

−0.48 (−1.25, 0.28)

2

SF MPQ—total pain

−25.71 %

−12.50 %

−0.31 (−1.07, 0.45)

8

Depression

CES-D

0.32 (−1.08, 0.44)

8

Quality of life, mental

Emotional well being

0.07 (−0.69, 0.82)

8

Quality of life, physical

Average physical subscales

−0.02 (−0.77, 0.74)

8

Morone et al. [47]

Pain

SF MPQ

−11.61 %

3.29 %

0.23 (−0.42, 0.88)

8

Quality of life, mental

SF-36 mental composite

0.22 (−0.43, 0.86)

8

Quality of life, physical

SF-36 physical composite

0.11 (−0.53, 0.76)

8

Disability

Roland-Morris disability

0.23 (−0.42, 0.87)

8

Morone et al. [57]

Pain

SF MPQ—total pain

−22.44 %

−26.71 %

−0.04 (−0.7, 0.63)

24

SF MPQ—total pain

−26.28 %

−29.19 %

−0.01 (−0.68, 0.65)

8

Morone et al. [36]

Pain

Numeric pain rating—average

−13.64 %

0.95 %

0.22 (−0.01, 0.46)

24

Quality of life

SF-36 global health composite

0.17 (−0.06, 0.41)

8

0.03 (−0.2, 0.26)

24

SF-36 physical health composite

0.17 (−0.06, 0.4)

8

0 (−0.23, 0.23)

24

Plews-Ogan et al. [59]

Pain

Pain unpleasantness vs. TAU

−7.46 %

−8.70 %

0.02 (CI, −1.04, 1.07)

12

Pain unpleasantness vs. massage

−7.46 %

−25.35 %

−0.16 (−1.19, 0.88)

12

Pain unpleasantness vs. TAU

−16.42 %

−13.04 %

0.07 (CI, −0.99, 1.13)

4

Pain unpleasantness vs. massage

−16.42 %

−12.68 %

−0.11 (CI, −0.92, 1.14)

4

Pain unpleasantness vs. TAU

−13.43 %

−1.45 %

0.17 (CI, −0.89, 1.23)

8

Pain unpleasantness vs. massage

−13.43 %

−39.44 %

−0.3 (CI, −1.34, 0.74)

8

Quality of Life, mental

SF-12 mental composite

0.67 (−0.42, 1.75)

12

Rahmani and Talepasand [63]

Pain

Global quality symptoms—pain

−26.52 %

11.11 %

1.85 (0.89, 2.8)

16

−44.89 %

−1.85 %

3.24 (2.02, 4.46)

8

Quality of life, general

Global quality total score

1.18 (0.32, 2.05)

16

Schmidt et al. [48]

Pain

Pain perception scale vs. waitlist

−13.19 %

−6.90 %

0.17 (−0.2, 0.55)

16

Pain perception scale vs. active

−13.19 %

−7.40 %

0.15 (−0.22, 0.53)

16

Pain Perception Scale vs. waitlist

−11.87 %

−8.00 %

0.08 (−0.3, 0.45)

8

Pain perception scale vs. active

−11.87 %

−4.86 %

0.22 (−0.16, 0.6)

8

Depression

CES-D

0.1 (−0.27, 0.48)

16

Quality of Life, General

QoL profile for chronically ill

0.26 (−0.12, 0.63)

16

Teixeira [64]

Pain

NeuroQoL pain

Missing baseline mean

0.14 (−0.74, 1.01)

4

 

Quality of life, general

NeuroQoL overall

0.79 (−0.12, 1.7)

4

Wells et al. [49]

Pain

Headache severity

−25.00 %

0.00 %

0.99 (0.04, 1.95)

12

Headache severity

−27.27 %

8.33 %

1.5 (0.48, 2.51)

8

Depression

PHQ

0.59 (−0.33, 1.51)

8

Quality of life, general

Migraine-specific QoL

−0.43 (−1.34, 0.48)

8

Wong [65]

Pain

  

Significant pain decrease; no usable data

  

Wong [28]

Pain

  

No significant effect; no usable data

  

Zautra et al. [29]

Pain

Pain vs. education

−14.49 %

−17.70 %

0.22 (−0.2, 0.63)

8

Pain vs. cognitive behavior therapy

−14.49 %

−14.34 %

0.56 (0.16, 0.96)

8

Depression

Depressive symptoms

0.28 (−0.13, 0.7)

8

Zgierska et al. [35]

Pain

 

Significant pain decrease; no follow-up data available

   

Note. BDI Beck depression inventory, BPI brief pain index; BS brief symptom inventory, CES-D The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, CI confidence interval, MADRS Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; MPQ McGill Pain Questionnaire, NPS Neuropathic Pain Scale, NeuroQoL Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders; PHQ Patient Health Questionnaire, QoL quality of life, SF-36 Short-Form Health Survey 36, SF MPQ Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, SMD standardized mean difference, TAU treatment as usual, VAS Visual Analog Scale

In total, studies assigned 3536 participants; sample sizes ranged from 19 to 342. Fifteen studies reported an a priori power calculation with targeted sample size achieved, ten studies did not report information about a power calculation, and three studies were unclear in the reporting of a power calculation. Ten studies noted there was insufficient power; the authors considered these pilot studies. The majority of the studies were conducted in North America or Europe. The mean age of participants ranged from 30 (SD, 9.08) to 78 years (SD, 7.1. Eight studies included only female participants.

Medical conditions reported included fibromyalgia in eight studies and back pain in eight studies. (Categories are not mutually exclusive; some studies included patients with different conditions.) Osteoarthritis was reported in two studies and rheumatoid arthritis in three. Migraine headache was reported in three studies and another type of headache in five studies. Three studies reported irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Eight studies reported other causes of pain and three studies did not specify a medical condition or source of chronic pain.

The total length of the interventions ranged from 3 to 12 weeks; the majority of interventions (29 studies) were 8 weeks in length. Twenty-one studies were conducted on mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and six on mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT). Eleven additional studies reported results on other types of mindfulness training. Thirteen RCTs provided the mindfulness intervention as monotherapy, and eighteen utilized a mindfulness intervention as adjunctive therapy, specifying that all participants received this in addition to other treatment such as medication. Seven of the studies were unclear as to whether the mindfulness intervention was monotherapy or adjunctive therapy. Nineteen RCTs used treatment as usual as comparators, thirteen used passive comparators, and ten used education/support groups as comparators. Beyond these common comparators, one study each used stress management, massage, a multidisciplinary pain intervention, relaxation/stretching, and nutritional information/food diaries as comparators; two studies used cognitive-behavioral therapy. Several studies had two comparison arms.

Study Quality and Risk of Bias

The study quality for each included study is displayed in Table 1. Eleven studies obtained a “good” quality rating [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38]. Fourteen studies were judged to be of fair quality, primarily due to being unclear in some aspects of the methods [39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52]. Thirteen studies were judged to be poor; ten primarily due to issues with completeness of reporting outcome data such as inadequate or missing intention to treat (ITT) analysis and/or less than 80 % follow-up [53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62] and three due to unclear methods [63, 64, 65]. Details of the quality ratings and risk of bias for each included study is displayed in Electronic Supplementary Material 1.

Measures

Studies reported patient pain measures such as the Visual Analog Scale, the SF-36 pain subscale, and McGill Pain Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included depression symptoms (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory, Patient Health Questionnaire), physical and mental health-related quality of life (e.g., SF-36 mental and physical components), and functional impairment/disability (e.g., Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Sheehan Disability Scale).

Chronic Pain Treatment Response

Thirty RCTs reported continuous outcome data on scales assessing chronic pain [29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66].

Eight studies met screening inclusion criteria but did not contribute to the meta-analysis because they did not report poolable data [28, 30, 34, 35, 38, 50, 61, 65]. Their study characteristics are displayed in Table 1, and study level effects along with the reasons they were not in pooled analyses are displayed in Table 2.

Pain scales and comparators varied from study to study. The median follow-up time was 12 weeks, with a range of 4 to 60 weeks. Figure 2 displays the results of meta-analysis using data at the longest follow-up for each study. The pooled analysis indicates a statistically significant effect of mindfulness meditation compared with treatment as usual, passive controls, and education/support groups (SMD, 0.32; 95 % CI, 0.09, 0.54; 30 RCTs). Substantial heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 77.6 %). There was no evidence of publication bias (Begg’s p = 0.26; Egger’s test p = 0.09). To investigate whether the treatment estimate is robust when excluding poor-quality studies and to explore the possible source of the substantial heterogeneity, we conducted a sensitivity analysis including only fair or good quality studies. The improvement remained significant, the effect size was smaller (SMD, 0.19; 95 % CI, 0.03, 0.34; 19 RCTs), and there was less heterogeneity (I2 = 50.5 %). Meta-regressions showed that changes in pain outcomes in good- (p = 0.42) and fair-quality (p = 0.13) studies were not significantly different from changes in poor-quality studies.
Fig. 2

Mindfulness meditation effects on chronic pain

In subgroup analyses, the effect was not statistically significant at 12 weeks or less (SMD, 0.25; 95 % CI, −0.13, 0.63; 15 RCTs; I2 = 82.6 %) but was significant for follow-up periods beyond 12 weeks (SMD, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.04, 0.59; 14 RCTs, I2 = 69.0 %). Begg’s test was not statistically significant (p = 0.16) but Egger’s test showed evidence of publication bias (p = 0.04). The quality of evidence that mindfulness meditation is associated with a decrease in chronic pain compared with control is low overall and for both short- and long-term follow-up due to inconsistency, heterogeneity, and possible publication bias. A detailed table displays the quality of evidence for findings for each major outcome in Electronic Supplementary Material 2.

In order to present clinically meaningful results, we calculated the percent change in pain symptoms from baseline to follow-up for mindfulness meditation and comparison groups for each study and displayed findings in Table 2. We then calculated the overall weighted mean percent change for mindfulness meditation groups versus comparison groups for effects of meditation for pain at longest follow-up. The mean percent change in pain for meditation groups was −0.19 % (SD, 0.91; min, −0.48; max, 0.10) while the mean percent change in pain for control groups was −0.08 % (SD, 0.74; min, −0.35; max, 0.11). The p value for the difference between groups was significant (p = 0.0031).

Depression

Depression outcomes were reported in 12 RCTs [29, 31, 33, 34, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56]. Overall, meditation significantly lowered depression scores as compared with treatment as usual, support, education, stress management, and waitlist control groups (SMD, 0.15; 95 % CI, 0.03, 0.26; 12 RCTs; I2 = 0 %). No heterogeneity was detected. The quality of evidence was rated as high due to lack of heterogeneity, consistent study results, and precision of effect (small confidence intervals).

Quality of Life

Sixteen studies reported mental health-related quality of life; the effect of mindfulness meditation was significant in the pooled analysis as compared with treatment as usual, support groups, education, stress management, and waitlist controls (SMD, 0.49; 95 % CI, 0.22, 0.76; I2, 74.9 %). [32, 33, 34, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64]. Sixteen studies measured physical health-related quality of life [32, 33, 34, 36, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 56, 60, 62, 63, 64]. Pooled analyses showed a significant effect of mindfulness meditation as compared with treatment as usual, support groups, education, stress management, and waitlist controls (SMD, 0.34; 95 % CI, 0.03, 0.65; I2, 79.2 %). Both quality-of-life analyses detected substantial heterogeneity, and the quality of evidence was rated as moderate for mental health (small confidence intervals, more consistent results) and low for physical health-related quality of life.

Functional Impairment (Disability Measures)

Four studies reported poolable disability scores from the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Sheehan Disability Scale [33, 36, 47, 55]. The difference between the mindfulness and comparison groups in follow-up was not statistically significant (SMD, 0.30; 95 % CI, −0.02, 0.62; I2 = 1.7 %), although the results approached significance. No heterogeneity was detected. The quality of evidence was rated low due to imprecision and small total sample size.

Analgesic Use

Only four studies reported use of analgesics as an outcome. In a study of MBSR for treatment of chronic pain due to failed back surgery syndrome [55], at 12-week follow-up, the analgesic medication logs of the intervention group documented a decrease in analgesic use compared with those in the control group (−1.5 (SD = 1.8) vs. 0.4 (SD = 1.1), p = <0.001). A study of mindfulness meditation and cognitive-behavioral therapy vs. usual care for low back pain [35] reported that the mean morphine equivalent dose (mg/day) of opioids was not significantly different between groups at both 8 and 26 weeks. Likewise, a trial of MBSR for back pain [38] found no significant difference between groups in self-reported use of pain medication. Finally, a trial of mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement (MORE) for chronic pain of various etiologies [44] found intervention participants significantly more likely to no longer meet criteria for opioid use disorder immediately following treatment (p = 0.05); however, these effects were not sustained at 3-month follow-up.

Adverse Events

Only 7 of the 38 included RCTs reported on adverse events. Four stated no adverse events occurred [36, 47, 50, 57]; one described that two participants experienced temporary strong feelings of anger toward their pain condition and two of the participants experienced greater anxiety [46]; two studies recorded mild side effects from yoga and progressive muscle relaxation [35, 38].

Study Characteristic Moderators

Meta-regressions were run to determine if changes in pain outcomes systematically differed by several subcategories. There was no difference in effect on pain between MBSR (16 studies) and MBCT (4 studies; p = 0.68) or other types of mindfulness interventions (10 studies; p = 0.68). When comparing MBSR (16 studies) to all other interventions (14 studies), there was also no difference in effect (p = 0.45). As stated in more detail above, medical conditions reported included fibromyalgia, back pain, arthritis, headache, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Meta-regressions did not suggest differences between headache (six studies) and other conditions (p = 0.93), back pain (eight studies) and other conditions (p = 0.15), and fibromyalgia (eight studies) and other conditions (p = 0.29). Gender composition (% male) had no association with effect on pain (p = 0.26). The total length of the intervention program ranged from 3 to 12 weeks (mean was 8 weeks). Meta-regression did not suggest differences between high-frequency interventions and medium- (p = 0.16) or low-frequency (p = 0.44) interventions. No systematic difference in effect on pain between adjunctive therapy and monotherapy (p = 0.62) or between adjunctive therapy and interventions where this was unclear (p = 0.10) was found. Finally, there was no systematic difference in effect whether the comparator was treatment as usual, waitlist, or another intervention (p = 0.21).

Discussion

In sum, mindfulness meditation was associated with a small effect of improved pain symptoms compared with treatment as usual, passive controls, and education/support groups in a meta-analysis of 30 randomized controlled trials. However, there was evidence of substantial heterogeneity among studies and possible publication bias resulting in a low quality of evidence. The efficacy of mindfulness meditation on pain did not differ systematically by type of intervention, medical condition, or by length or frequency of intervention. Mindfulness meditation was associated with statistically significant improvement in depression, physical health-related quality of life, and mental health-related quality of life. Quality of evidence was high for depression, moderate for mental health-related quality of life, and low for physical health-related quality of life. Only four studies reported on change in analgesic use; results were mixed. Adverse events in the included RCTs were rare and not serious, but the vast majority of studies did not collect adverse events data.

This review has several methodological strengths: an a priori research design, duplicate study selection and data abstraction of study information, a comprehensive search of electronic databases, risk of bias assessments, and comprehensive quality of evidence assessments used to formulate review conclusions. One limitation is that we did not contact individual study authors; results reported in the review are based on published data. We excluded conference abstracts which do not contain enough data to evaluate study quality. In addition, we included only studies published in English.

The included studies had many limitations. Thirteen of the thirty-eight studies were rated as poor quality, primarily due to lack of ITT, poor follow-up, or poor reporting of methods for randomization and concealment of allocation. The authors of ten studies reported inadequate statistical power to detect differences in pain outcomes between mindfulness meditation and the comparator; the authors considered these pilot studies. Ten other studies did not report a power calculation. Sample sizes were small; 15 studies randomized fewer than 50 participants.

More well-designed, rigorous, and large RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can more decisively provide estimates of its effectiveness. Studies should enroll samples large enough to detect statistical differences in outcomes and should follow-up with participants for 6 to 12 months in order to assess the long-term effects of meditation. Adherence to mindfulness practice and simultaneous use of other therapies should be monitored frequently. Intervention characteristics, including the optimal dose, have also not yet conclusively been established. In order to detect intervention specific effects, studies need to have attention-matched controls. Smaller trials may be conducted to answer these questions. Other outcomes that were outside the scope of this review may be important to explore. As the impact of mindfulness may be related to the appraisal of the pain, it may be useful for future trials to focus primary outcomes on symptoms associated with pain such as quality of life, pain-related interference, pain tolerance, analgesic, and related issues such as opioid craving. Future publications on RCTs of mindfulness meditation should adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) standards.

Only three RCTs attributed minor adverse events to mindfulness meditation. However, only 7 of the 38 included RCTs mentioned whether adverse events were monitored and collected. Thus quality of evidence for adverse events reported in RCTs is inadequate for a comprehensive assessment. Given published reports of adverse events during meditation, including psychosis [67], future trials should actively collect adverse events data. In addition, a systematic review of observational studies and case reports would shed additional light on adverse events during mindfulness meditation.

Further research examining the effect of mindfulness meditation on chronic pain should also focus on better understanding whether there is a minimum frequency or duration of meditation practice for it to be effective. While recent studies have yielded similar positive effects of mindfulness for pain, these effects tend to be small to medium and based on a body of evidence that is, at best, of moderate quality. A potential way to advance research on chronic pain would be to improve intervention and control group descriptions, identify different effects of various components of complex interventions, and work toward a standard criterion for assessing therapeutic gain [68]. Head-to-head trials that compare mindfulness interventions of a similar category but with variations in components or dose may be helpful to tease out the most effective elements of these interventions [69].

Similar to previous reviews in this area, we conclude that while mindfulness meditation interventions showed significant improvements for chronic pain, depression, and quality of life, the weaknesses in the body of evidence prevent strong conclusions. The available evidence did not yield consistent effects for pain outcomes, and few studies were available for forms of mindfulness meditation other than MBSR. Quality of evidence for the efficacy of mindfulness interventions in reducing chronic pain is low. There was higher quality evidence of the efficacy of mindfulness meditation on depression and mental health-related quality-of-life outcomes. This review is consistent with previous reviews concluding that more well-designed, rigorous, and large RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can more decisively provide estimates of the efficacy of mindfulness meditation for chronic pain. In the meantime, chronic pain continues to pose a tremendous burden on society and individuals. A novel therapeutic approach for chronic pain management such as mindfulness meditation would likely be welcomed by patients suffering from pain.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding and Disclaimer

The systematic review was sponsored by the Department of Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury (contract number 14-539.2). The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury.

Authors Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards Authors

Authors Hilton, Hempel, Ewing, Apaydin, Xenakis, Newberry, Colaiaco, Maher, Shanman, Sorbero, and Maglione declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Supplementary material

12160_2016_9844_MOESM1_ESM.docx (33 kb)
ESM 1(DOCX 33 kb)
12160_2016_9844_MOESM2_ESM.docx (27 kb)
ESM 2(DOCX 26 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Chou R, Turner JA, Devine EB, et al.: The effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain: a systematic review for a National Institutes of Health pathways to prevention workshop. Annals of Internal Medicine 2015, 162:276–286.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institute of Medicine: Relieving pain in America: A blueprint for transforming prevention, care, education, and research (report brief). www.iom.edu/relievingpain . 2011.
  3. 3.
    Department of Veterans Affairs Department of Defense: VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for management of opioid therapy for chronic pain. May 2010.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chiesa A, Serretti A: Mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain: a systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2011, 17:83–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kabat-Zinn J, Lipworth L, Burney R: The clinical use of mindfulness meditation for the self-regulation of chronic pain. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 1985, 8:163–190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MARC: UCLA Mindfulness Awareness Research Center. Accessed May 29, 2015. http://marc.ucla.edu/default.cfm
  7. 7.
    Brewer JA, Garrison KA: The posterior cingulate cortex as a plausible mechanistic target of meditation: findings from neuroimaging. Ann NY Acad Sci 2014, 1307:19–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boccia M, Piccardi L, Guariglia P: The meditative mind: a comprehensive meta-analysis of MRI studies. Biomed Res Int 2015, Article ID 419808:1–11.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chiesa A, Serretti A: Are mindfulness-based interventions effective for substance use disorders? A systematic review of the evidence. Substance Use and Misuse 2014, 49:492–512.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Souza IC, de Barros VV, Gomide HP, et al.: Mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of smoking: a systematic literature review. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2015, 21:129–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goyal M, Singh S, Sibinga EM, et al.: Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2014, 174:357–368.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kozasa EH, Tanaka LH, Monson C, et al.: The effects of meditation-based interventions on the treatment of fibromyalgia. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2012, 16:383–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cramer H, Haller H, Lauche R, Dobos G: Mindfulness-based stress reduction for low back pain. A systematic review. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012, 12:162.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reiner K, Tibi L, Lipsitz JD: Do mindfulness-based interventions reduce pain intensity? A critical review of the literature. Pain Medicine 2013, 14:230–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lauche R, Cramer H, Dobos G, Langhorst J, Schmidt S: A systematic review and meta-analysis of mindfulness-based stress reduction for the fibromyalgia syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2013, 75:500–510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lakhan SE, Schofield KL: Mindfulness-based therapies in the treatment of somatization disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One 2013, 8:e71834.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Merkes M: Mindfulness-based stress reduction for people with chronic diseases. Aust J Prim Health 2010, 16:200–210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee C, Crawford C, Hickey A: Mind-body therapies for the self-management of chronic pain symptoms. Pain Medicine 2014, 15 Suppl 1:S21–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bawa FL, Mercer SW, Atherton RJ, et al.: Does mindfulness improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain? Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of General Practice 2015, 65:e387–400.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Higgins J, Green S: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0; 2011.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    US Preventive Services Task Force: US Preventive Services Task Force Procedure Manual. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    The Lewin Group and ECRI Institute: Management of dyslipidemia: Evidence synthesis report. Clinical practice guideline. 2014.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hartung J: An alternative method for meta-analysis. Biometrical Journal 1999, 41:901–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hartung J, Knapp G: A refined method for the meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome. Statistics in Medicine 2001, 20:3875–3889.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sidik K, Jonkman JN: Robust variance estimation for random effects meta-analysis. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 2006, 50:3681–3701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al.: GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011, 64:401–406.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315:629–634.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wong SY, Chan FW, Wong RL, et al.: Comparing the effectiveness of mindfulness-based stress reduction and multidisciplinary intervention programs for chronic pain: a randomized comparative trial. Clinical Journal of Pain 2011, 27:724–734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zautra AJ, Davis MC, Reich JW, et al.: Comparison of cognitive behavioral and mindfulness meditation interventions on adaptation to rheumatoid arthritis for patients with and without history of recurrent depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2008, 76:408–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fogarty FA, Booth RJ, Gamble GD, Dalbeth N, Consedine NS: The effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction on disease activity in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised controlled trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2015, 74:472–474.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Parra-Delgado M, Latorre-Postigo JM: Effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in the treatment of fibromyalgia: a randomised trial. Cognitive Therapy and Research 2013, 37:1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fjorback LO, Arendt M, Ornbol E, et al.: Mindfulness therapy for somatization disorder and functional somatic syndromes: randomized trial with one-year follow-up. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2013, 74:31–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ljotsson B, Falk L, Vesterlund AW, et al.: Internet-delivered exposure and mindfulness based therapy for irritable bowel syndrome--a randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy 2010, 48:531–539.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ljotsson B, Hedman E, Andersson E, et al.: Internet-delivered exposure-based treatment vs. stress management for irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized trial. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2011, 106:1481–1491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zgierska AE, Burzinski CA, Cox J, et al. 2016 Mindfulness meditation and cognitive behavioral therapy intervention reduces pain severity and sensitivity in opioid-treated chronic low back pain: pilot findings from a randomized controlled trial. Pain MedicineGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Morone NE, Greco CM, Moore CG, et al.: A mind-body program for older adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2016, 176:329–337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johns SA, Brown LF, Beck-Coon K, et al. 2016 Randomized controlled pilot trial of mindfulness-based stress reduction compared to psychoeducational support for persistently fatigued breast and colorectal cancer survivors. Supportive Care in CancerGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Balderson BH, et al.: Effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction vs cognitive behavioral therapy or usual care on back pain and functional limitations in adults with chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016, 315:1240–1249.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cash E, Salmon P, Weissbecker I, et al.: Mindfulness meditation alleviates fibromyalgia symptoms in women: results of a randomized clinical trial. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2015, 49:319–330.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cathcart S, Galatis N, Immink M, Proeve M, Petkov J: Brief mindfulness-based therapy for chronic tension-type headache: a randomized controlled pilot study. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 2014, 42:1–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Day MA, Thorn BE, Ward LC, et al.: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for the treatment of headache pain: a pilot study. Clinical Journal of Pain 2014, 30:152–161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Davis MC, Zautra AJ: An online mindfulness intervention targeting socioemotional regulation in fibromyalgia: results of a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2013, 46:273–284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dowd H, Hogan MJ, McGuire BE, et al.: Comparison of an online mindfulness-based cognitive therapy intervention with online pain management psychoeducation: a randomized controlled study. Clinical Journal of Pain 2015, 31:517–527.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Garland EL, Manusov EG, Froeliger B, et al.: Mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement for chronic pain and prescription opioid misuse: results from an early-stage randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2014, 82:448–459.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gaylord SA, Palsson OS, Garland EL, et al.: Mindfulness training reduces the severity of irritable bowel syndrome in women: results of a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2011, 106:1678–1688.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    la Cour P, Petersen M: Effects of mindfulness meditation on chronic pain: a randomized controlled trial. Pain Medicine. 2015, 16:641–652.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Morone NE, Greco CM, Weiner DK: Mindfulness meditation for the treatment of chronic low back pain in older adults: a randomized controlled pilot study. Pain. 2008, 134:310–319.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schmidt S, Grossman P, Schwarzer B, et al.: Treating fibromyalgia with mindfulness-based stress reduction: results from a 3-armed randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2011, 152:361–369.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wells RE, Burch R, Paulsen RH, et al.: Meditation for migraines: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Headache. 2014, 54:1484–1495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jay K, Brandt M, Hansen K, et al.: Effect of individually tailored biopsychosocial workplace interventions on chronic musculoskeletal pain and stress among laboratory technicians: randomized controlled trial. Pain Physician. 2015, 18:459–471.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kearney DJ, Simpson TL, Malte CA, et al.: Mindfulness-based stress reduction in addition to usual care is associated with improvements in pain, fatigue, and cognitive failures among veterans with gulf war illness. American Journal of Medicine. 2016, 129:204–214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lengacher CA, Reich RR, Paterson CL, et al. (2016) Examination of broad symptom improvement resulting from mindfulness-based stress reduction in breast cancer survivors: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical OncologyGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Astin JA, Berman BM, Bausell B, et al.: The efficacy of mindfulness meditation plus qigong movement therapy in the treatment of fibromyalgia: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Rheumatology 2003, 30:2257–2262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brown CA, Jones AK: Psychobiological correlates of improved mental health in patients with musculoskeletal pain after a mindfulness-based pain management program. Clinical Journal of Pain. 2013, 29:233–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Esmer G, Blum J, Rulf J, Pier J: Mindfulness-based stress reduction for failed back surgery syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 2010, 110:646–652.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Meize-Grochowski R, Shuster G, Boursaw B, et al.: Mindfulness meditation in older adults with postherpetic neuralgia: a randomized controlled pilot study. Geriatric Nursing (New York, N.Y.). 2015, 36:154–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Morone NE, Rollman BL, Moore CG, Li Q, Weiner DK: A mind-body program for older adults with chronic low back pain: results of a pilot study. Pain Medicine 2009, 10:1395–1407.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Omidi A, Zargar F: Effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction on pain severity and mindful awareness in patients with tension headache: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Nursing and Midwifery Studies. 2014, 3:e21136.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Plews-Ogan M, Owens JE, Goodman M, Wolfe P, Schorling J: A pilot study evaluating mindfulness-based stress reduction and massage for the management of chronic pain. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005, 20:1136–1138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Banth S, Ardebil MD: Effectiveness of mindfulness meditation on pain and quality of life of patients with chronic low back pain. Int J Yoga. 2015, 8:128–133.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bakhshani NM, Amirani A, Amirifard H, Shahrakipoor M: The effectiveness of mindfulness-based stress reduction on perceived pain intensity and quality of life in patients with chronic headache. Glob J Health Sci 2016, 8:47326.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kanter G, Komesu YM, Qaedan F, et al.: Mindfulness-based stress reduction as a novel treatment for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2016.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rahmani S, Talepasand S: The effect of group mindfulness—based stress reduction program and conscious yoga on the fatigue severity and global and specific life quality in women with breast cancer. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran 2015, 29:175.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Teixeira E: The effect of mindfulness meditation on painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in adults older than 50 years. Holistic Nursing Practice. 2010, 24:277–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wong SY: Effect of mindfulness-based stress reduction programme on pain and quality of life in chronic pain patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Hong Kong Medical Journal. Xianggang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2009, 15 Suppl 6:13–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fjorback LO, Arendt M, Ornbol E, Fink P, Walach H: Mindfulness-based stress reduction and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2011, 124:102–119.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kuijpers HJ, van der Heijden FM, Tuinier S, Verhoeven WM: Meditation-induced psychosis. Psychopathology 2007, 40:461–464.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Morley S, Williams A: New developments in the psychological management of chronic pain. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. Revue Canadienne de Psychiatri 2015, 60:168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kerns RD, Burns JW, Shulman M, et al.: Can we improve cognitive-behavioral therapy for chronic back pain treatment engagement and adherence? A controlled trial of tailored versus standard therapy. Health Psychology 2014, 33:938–947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lara Hilton
    • 1
  • Susanne Hempel
    • 1
  • Brett A. Ewing
    • 1
  • Eric Apaydin
    • 1
  • Lea Xenakis
    • 1
  • Sydne Newberry
    • 1
  • Ben Colaiaco
    • 1
  • Alicia Ruelaz Maher
    • 1
  • Roberta M. Shanman
    • 1
  • Melony E. Sorbero
    • 1
  • Margaret A. Maglione
    • 1
  1. 1.RAND CorporationSanta MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations