Effect on Well-Being from an Online Mindfulness Intervention: “Mindful in May”
- 465 Downloads
Mindfulness has been shown to improve mental health and well-being both in clinical populations and in healthy controls. However, while most mindfulness interventions have been assessed in a research context, demonstrating efficacy, the majority of mindfulness interventions in the public sphere are not assessed, and there has been little research examining the effectiveness of these interventions in the public context. As such, this study explored whether a public online mindfulness intervention providing 10-min daily guided meditations was associated with improvements in well-being, and whether these improvements were related to the number of days participants practiced mindfulness meditation. Two hundred and nineteen participants took part in the study. Participants were aged 22–75 (mean age 44.31, SD 12.40), and the majority of participants were female (199, 16.16%). The majority of participants undertook mindfulness practice on 25+ days (126 respondents of 219; 57.53%). Participants completed both baseline and post-intervention assessments of perceived stress, positive and negative affect, mindfulness, flourishing, and self-compassion. Results indicated that all measures improved from baseline to post-intervention and that number of days practiced predicted increased mindfulness, and increased mindfulness predicted improvements in positive affect. These results suggest that online mindfulness interventions may be effective at improving mental health in the general population.
KeywordsMindfulness Internet intervention Perceived stress Well-being
We would like to acknowledge Dominic Hosemans for providing valuable statistical advice.
NWB designed and executed the study, collated and processed the data, assisted with data analysis, and wrote the paper. JN analysed the data, wrote sections of the results and methods, and contributed to proofing other sections. EB collaborated with the design and writing of the study. SEC collaborated with the design and writing of the study. TG contributed with the design and writing of the study. RC contributed with the design and writing of the study. PBF collaborated in the writing and editing of the final manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical approval for all research procedures involved in the study was obtained from the Alfred Hospital and Monash University’s ethics committees. All participants were provided with a statement that their responses were anonymous and that completion of the survey was taken as informed consent.
Conflict of Interest
PBF has received equipment for research from Brainsway Ltd., Medtronic Ltd. and MagVenture A/S and funding for research from Cervel Neurotech and Neuronetics Ltd. PBF has received consultancy fees as a scientific advisor for Bionomics. EB is the director of MiM. NWB, JN, TG, RC and SC have no conflicts to declare.
- Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the US. In S. Spacapam & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 31–67). Newberry Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1348/0144665031752934.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: mindfulness meditation in everyday life. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
- Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156.Google Scholar
- McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Vettese, L. C., Toneatto, T., Stea, J. N., Nguyen, L., & Wang, J. J. (2009) Do mindfulness meditation participants do their homework? And does it make a difference? A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(3), 198–225Google Scholar