Search

Background: Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) have shown beneficial effects on mental health. There is emerging evidence that MBPs may also be associated with marked deviations in the subjective experience of waking consciousness. We aimed to explore whether MBPs can have a causal role in different types of such states. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12615001160527). University of Cambridge students without severe mental illness were randomised to an 8-week MBP plus mental health support as usual (SAU), or to SAU alone. We adapted the Altered States of Consciousness Rating Scale (OAV, 0–100-point range) to assess spontaneous experiences in daily life, and included it as a post-hoc secondary outcome at the end of the one-year follow-up questionnaire. Two-part model analyses compared trial arms, and estimated dose-response effects of formal (meditation) and informal (daily activities) mindfulness practice during the year. Sensitivity analyses correcting for multiple comparisons were conducted. Results: We randomised 670 participants; 205 (33%) completed the OAV. In comparison with SAU, MBP participants experienced unity more frequently and intensively (two-part marginal effect (ME) = 6.26 OAV scale points, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.24, 10.27, p = 0.006, Cohen's d = 0.33) and disembodiment more frequently (ME = 4.84, 95% CI = 0.86, 8.83, p = 0.019, Cohen's d = 0.26). Formal practice predicted spiritual, blissful and unity experiences, insightfulness, disembodiment, and changed meanings. Informal practice predicted unity and blissful experiences. Trial arm comparisons and informal practice effects lost significance after corrections for multiple comparisons, but formal practice dose-response effects remained significant. Conclusions: Results provide a novel suggestion of causal links between mindfulness practice and specific altered states of consciousness. To optimise their impact, practitioners and teachers need to anticipate and handle them appropriately. Future studies need to confirm findings and assess mechanisms and clinical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the increasing interest in mindfulness practices within clinical as well as non-clinical settings and the increasing body of research on the positive effects of mindfulness, concerns have been raised that mindfulness might also produce adverse effects including intense experiences and psychosis. The aim of this study was to investigate if intense experiences occur as a natural part of mindfulness practice, and if so to examine the characteristics of such experiences. We conducted a qualitative analysis based on fortnightly meditation reports from 13 mindfulness teacher trainees for 4 months. Intense experiences in meditation were frequently expressed in the reports of most of the practitioners and in some individuals these experiences were similar to psychotic-like experiences. This study presents suggestive evidence that mindfulness practices can produce intense experiences and that for some individuals these intense experiences may resemble psychotic-like experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Author(s): Julieta Galante 1,2,*, Claire Friedrich 1, Anna F Dawson 3, Marta Modrego-Alarcón 4,5, Pia Gebbing 6, Irene Delgado-Suárez 4,7, Radhika Gupta 1, Lydia Dean 1, Tim Dalgleish 1,8, Ian [...], Background There is an urgent need for mental health promotion in nonclinical settings. Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are being widely implemented to reduce stress, but a comprehensive evidence synthesis is lacking. We reviewed trials to assess whether MBPs promote mental health relative to no intervention or comparator interventions. Methods and findings Following a detailed preregistered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42018105213) developed with public and professional stakeholders, 13 databases were searched to August 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining in-person, expert-defined MBPs in nonclinical settings. Two researchers independently selected, extracted, and appraised trials using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were psychometrically validated anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and mental well-being questionnaires at 1 to 6 months after programme completion. Multiple testing was performed using p < 0.0125 (Bonferroni) for statistical significance. Secondary outcomes, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were prespecified. Pairwise random-effects multivariate meta-analyses and prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated. A total of 11,605 participants in 136 trials were included (29 countries, 77% women, age range 18 to 73 years). Compared with no intervention, in most but not all scenarios MBPs improved average anxiety (8 trials; standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to -0.33; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.19 to 0.06), depression (14 trials; SMD = -0.53; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.34; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.14 to 0.07), distress (27 trials; SMD = -0.45; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.31; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.04 to 0.14), and well-being (9 trials; SMD = 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54; p-value = 0.003; 95% PI -0.29 to 0.94). Compared with nonspecific active control conditions, in most but not all scenarios MBPs improved average depression (6 trials; SMD = -0.46; 95% CI -0.81 to -0.10; p-value = 0.012, 95% PI -1.57 to 0.66), with no statistically significant evidence for improving anxiety or distress and no reliable data on well-being. Compared with specific active control conditions, there is no statistically significant evidence of MBPs&apos; superiority. Only effects on distress remained when higher-risk trials were excluded. USA-based trials reported smaller effects. MBPs targeted at higher-risk populations had larger effects than universal MBPs. The main limitation of this review is that confidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is moderate to very low, mainly due to inconsistency and high risk of bias in many trials. Conclusions Compared with taking no action, MBPs of the included studies promote mental health in nonclinical settings, but given the heterogeneity between studies, the findings do not support generalisation of MBP effects across every setting. MBPs may have specific effects on some common mental health symptoms. Other preventative interventions may be equally effective. Implementation of MBPs in nonclinical settings should be partnered with thorough research to confirm findings and learn which settings are most likely to benefit.

Background: A significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures. Methods and findings: In this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of "Fair" quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: Many effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence is growing that low-dose aspirin used as an adjuvant treatment of cancer is associated with an increased survival and a reduction in metastatic spread. We therefore extended up to August 2017 an earlier systematic search and meta-analyses of published studies of low-dose aspirin taken by patients with a diagnosis of cancer. Methods: Searches were completed in Medline and Embase to August 2017 using a pre-defined search strategy to identify reports of relevant studies. References in all the selected papers were scanned. Two reviewers independently applied pre-determined eligibility criteria and extracted data on cause-specific cancer deaths, overall mortality and the occurrence of metastatic spread. Meta-analyses were then conducted for different cancers and heterogeneity and publication bias assessed. Sensitivity analyses and attempts to reduce heterogeneity were conducted. Results: Analyses of 29 studies reported since an earlier review up to April 2015 are presented in this report, and these are then pooled with the 42 studies in our earlier publication. Overall meta-analyses of the 71 studies are presented, based on a total of over 120 thousand patients taking aspirin. Ten of the studies also give evidence on the incidence of metastatic cancer spread. There are now twenty-nine observational studies describing colorectal cancer (CRC) and post-diagnostic aspirin. Pooling the estimates of reduction by aspirin which are reported as hazard ratios (HR), gives an overall HR for aspirin and CRC mortality 0.72 (95% CI 0.64–0.80). Fourteen observational studies have reported on aspirin and breast cancer mortality and pooling those that report the association with aspirin as a hazard ratio gives HR 0.69 (0.53–0.90). Sixteen studies report on aspirin and prostate cancer mortality and a pooled estimate yields an HR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.73–1.05). Data from 12 reports relating to other cancers are also listed. Ten studies give evidence of a reduction in metastatic spread; four give a pooled HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.18, 0.54) and five studies which reported odds ratio of metastatic spread give OR 0.79 (0.66 to 0.95). Conclusion: Being almost entirely from observational studies, the evidence of benefit from aspirin is limited. There is heterogeneity between studies and the results are subject to important biases, only some of which can be identified. Nevertheless, the evidence would seem to merit wide discussion regarding whether or not it is adequate to justify the recommendation of low-dose therapeutic aspirin, and if it is, for which cancers? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aspirin has been shown to lower the incidence and the mortality of vascular disease and cancer but its wider adoption appears to be seriously impeded by concerns about gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Unlike heart attacks, stroke and cancer, GI bleeding is an acute event, usually followed by complete recovery. We propose therefore that a more appropriate evaluation of the risk-benefit balance would be based on fatal adverse events, rather than on the incidence of bleeding. We therefore present a literature search and meta-analysis to ascertain fatal events attributable to low-dose aspirin. Methods: In a systematic literature review we identified reports of randomised controlled trials of aspirin in which both total GI bleeding events and bleeds that led to death had been reported. Principal investigators of studies in which fatal events had not been adequately described were contacted via email and asked for further details. A meta-analyses was then performed to estimate the risk of fatal gastrointestinal bleeding attributable to low-dose aspirin. Results: Eleven randomised trials were identified in the literature search. In these the relative risk (RR) of ‘major’ incident GI bleeding in subjects who had been randomised to low-dose aspirin was 1.55 (95% CI 1.33, 1.83), and the risk of a bleed attributable to aspirin being fatal was 0.45 (95% CI 0.25, 0.80). In all the subjects randomised to aspirin, compared with those randomised not to receive aspirin, there was no significant increase in the risk of a fatal bleed (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.41, 1.43). Conclusions: The majority of the adverse events caused by aspirin are GI bleeds, and there appears to be no valid evidence that the overall frequency of fatal GI bleeds is increased by aspirin. The substantive risk for prophylactic aspirin is therefore cerebral haemorrhage which can be fatal or severely disabling, with an estimated risk of one death and one disabling stroke for every 1,000 people taking aspirin for ten years. These adverse effects of aspirin should be weighed against the reductions in vascular disease and cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthy lifestyles based on non-smoking, an acceptable BMI, a high fruit and vegetable intake, regular physical activity, and low/moderate alcohol intake, are associated with reductions in the incidence of certain chronic diseases, but to date there is limited evidence on cognitive function and dementia. Methods: In 1979 healthy behaviours were recorded on 2,235 men aged 45–59 years in Caerphilly, UK. During the following 30 years incident diabetes, vascular disease, cancer and death were recorded, and in 2004 cognitive state was determined. Findings: Men who followed four or five of the behaviours had an odds ratio (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) for diabetes, corrected for age and social class, of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.19, 1.31; P for trend with increasing numbers of healthy behaviours <0.0005). For vascular disease the OR was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.30, 0.84; P for trend <0.0005), and there was a delay in vascular disease events of up to 12 years. Cancer incidence was not significantly related to lifestyle although there was a reduction associated with non-smoking (OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.79). All-cause mortality was reduced in men following four or five behaviours (OR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.67; P for trend <0.005). After further adjustment for NART, the OR for men following four or five healthy behaviours was 0.36 (95% CI: 0.12, 1.09; P for trend <0.001) for cognitive impairment, and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.07, 1.99; P for trend <0.02) for dementia. The adoption of a healthy lifestyle by men was low and appears not to have changed during the subsequent 30 years, with under 1% of men following all five of the behaviours and 5% reporting four or more in 1979 and in 2009. Interpretation: A healthy lifestyle is associated with increased disease-free survival and reduced cognitive impairment but the uptake remains low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]