Search

The study of mental health literacy is well-developed, but the basic methodology used in this research (i.e., the use of text-based vignettes) has not changed substantively in over two decades of work. Here, we developed novel filmed disclosures to re-assess mental health literacy of depression in a preregistered study utilizing a randomized, fully within-subjects design. A total of 405 adults from Austria (57% women, age M = 32.5 years) viewed short (~3 min) filmed disclosures by a female or male target and were asked to report if they thought anything was wrong with the targets and, if so, to describe what they thought was wrong. Participants also rated the targets on a range of attitudinal dimensions and completed measures of conformity to masculine norms and expressivity. The majority of participants (93.8%) correctly identified that something was wrong with the targets and, of those that did, the majority (69.2%) correctly described cases of depression. Neither target nor participant gender significantly influenced symptom recognition. Gendered effects were also largely null in terms of perceived distress, treatment difficulty, sympathy, and likelihood of recommending help for the targets, and both conformity to masculine norms and expressivity had minimal impact on attitudinal dimensions. These results highlight the potential utility of filmed disclosures in the study of mental health literacy and suggest that gendered effects reported in previous studies may be an artifact of the use of text-based vignettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meta-analyses suggest that mindfulness interventions have positive effects on mental health. Yet, how mindfulness interventions exert their effects is still largely unknown. Self-reported mindfulness may partially mediate the association between mindfulness interventions and change in self-reported mental health. We present the results of a novel application of three-level meta-analysis on the pre–post intervention data of 146 RCTs of mindfulness interventions (total N = 10,979), probing the efficacy of a broad range of mindfulness interventions and meditation training against active, treatment-as-usual (TAU), and wait-list control groups. We found that self-reported mindfulness not only increased in mindfulness interventions (d = 0.54, 95% CI [0.47, 0.61]), but also in active (nonmindfulness) controls (d = 0.27 [0.18, 0.36]) and wait-list controls (d = 0.10 [0.04, 0.17]; but not TAU controls: d = 0.04 [−0.03, 0.12]). In addition, change in mindfulness accounted for change in self-reported mental health (mindfulness interventions: d = 0.65 [0.57, 0.73]; active controls: d = 0.49 [0.36, 0.62]; TAU controls: d = 0.20 [0.12, 0.29]; wait-list controls: d = 0.22 [0.14, 0.30]) in all treatment and control groups alike. Thus, self-reported mindfulness apparently is no unique mediator of mindfulness interventions. It may either be more universal, merely a correlate of self-reported mental health, or both. Research should focus on the common denominator of mindfulness interventions and clinically relevant constructs with which self-reported mindfulness shares some of its characteristics. Limitations pertain to the indirect evidence of the three-level meta-analytic approach, the self-report nature of the data, and small-study effects, which suggest the presence of publication bias. The risk of bias may have led to the overestimation of effects and results could further be subjected to effects of shared method variance. Public Significance Statement: This meta-analysis suggests that increases in self-reported mindfulness may explain the treatment efficacy of various mindfulness-based interventions, but also of nonmindfulness-based controls. Self-reported mindfulness thus may be no unique mediator of the effects of mindfulness interventions. The current evidence leaves open whether self-reported mindfulness might be a universal mediator of treatment effects, merely reflects changes of self-reported mental health in general, or both. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]