Abstract
Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) emphasize the importance of mindfulness practice at home as an integral part of the program. However, the extent to which participants complete their assigned practice is not yet clear, nor is it clear whether this practice is associated with positive outcomes.For this systematic review and meta-analysis, searches were performed using Scopus and PubMed for studies published through to the end of 2015, reporting on formal home practice of mindfulness by MBSR or MBCT participants.Across 43 studies (N = 1427), the pooled estimate for participants' home practice was 64% of the assigned amount, equating to about 30 minutes per day, six days per week [95% CI 60–69%]. There was substantial heterogeneity associated with this estimate. Across 28 studies (N = 898), there was a small but significant association between participants’ self-reported home practice and intervention outcomes (r = 0·26, 95% CI 0·19,–0·34).MBSR and MBCT participants report completing substantial formal mindfulness practice at home over the eight-week intervention, albeit less than assigned amounts. There is a small but significant association between the extent of formal practice and positive intervention outcomes for a wide range of participants.
Highlights
Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) emphasize the importance of mindfulness practice at home as an integral part of the program
We included studies that reported on MBCT or MBSR delivered in line with the format described in the respective manuals, namely an eight-week group program, with class time of 2-2$5 h and one all-day retreat, requiring at-home mindfulness practice for about 45 min, six days per week (Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2013)
Comparing MBCT and MBSR, we found no significant differences in home practice reports (MBCT: n 1⁄4 11, 61.08%, 95% CI 52$7e69$44%; MBSR: n 1⁄4 21, 64$4%; 95% CI 59.26e69.52%; Q 1⁄4 0.44, df 1⁄4 1, p 1⁄4 0$51)
Summary
This review followed procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews (Higgins & Green, 2008) and by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD, 2014).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
