Mindfulness-based interventions for cancer patients in standard treatment: A meta-analysis of effects on depression, anxiety, and quality of life.
Ema Štánerová, Veronika Zelenayová, Jakub Rajčáni
Journal of psychosomatic research July 5, 2025 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2025.112312 via PubMed
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractMindfulness interventions during active cancer treatment moderately improve quality of life and reduce depression and anxiety. A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials found moderate effects on quality of life (12 studies, 1124 participants), depression (19 studies, 1586 participants), and anxiety (20 studies, 1542 participants), though with considerable variation across studies. Effectiveness differed by intervention type but not by cancer diagnosis. The overall quality of evidence was low due to unexplained heterogeneity and risk of bias. The findings underscore the need to examine sources of variation and improve methodological transparency in future research.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Population | Adult patients with cancer during the active treatment phase |
| Intervention | Mindfulness interventions |
| Topics | Anxiety Depression Meditation |
| Keywords | Quality of life Cancer Interventions Practices |
| Citations | 8 |
| Key finding | Mindfulness interventions during active cancer treatment showed moderate improvements in quality of life and reductions in depression and anxiety, with considerable heterogeneity and low overall evidence quality. |
Abstract
Mindfulness interventions are indicated to be effective in reducing psychological symptoms faced by patients with cancer. However, there is a lack of revised evidence on their effectiveness during the active treatment phase. To address this research gap, we conducted a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials with adult patients written in English, published in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Scopus databases up to July 25, 2023. Studies with participants who completed oncological treatment more than 6 months before inclusion in the study were excluded. We calculated moderate effects on quality of life (12 studies with 1124 participants; SMD = 0.50; 95 % CI [0.33, 0.67]), depression (19 studies with 1586 participants; SMD = -0.60; 95 % CI [-0.79; -0.41]) and anxiety (20 studies with 1542 participants; SMD = -0.64; 95 % CI [-0.83, -0.46]), but with considerable heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses revealed that effectiveness differed for distinct types of intervention, but not for different cancer diagnoses. The overall quality of evidence (GRADE) was low mainly due to unexplained heterogeneity and risk of bias in most studies. Our findings highlight the importance of thoroughly examining sources of heterogeneity and enhancing methodological transparency in primary studies within oncology populations.