Search

Importance: Relapse prevention in recurrent depression is a significant public health problem, and antidepressants are the current first-line treatment approach. Identifying an equally efficacious nonpharmacological intervention would be an important development.Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis on individual patient data to examine the efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) compared with usual care and other active treatments, including antidepressants, in treating those with recurrent depression.Data Sources: English-language studies published or accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals identified from EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from the first available year to November 22, 2014. Searches were conducted from November 2010 to November 2014.Study Selection: Randomized trials of manualized MBCT for relapse prevention in recurrent depression in full or partial remission that compared MBCT with at least 1 non-MBCT treatment, including usual care.Data Extraction and Synthesis: This was an update to a previous meta-analysis. We screened 2555 new records after removing duplicates. Abstracts were screened for full-text extraction (S.S.) and checked by another researcher (T.D.). There were no disagreements. Of the original 2555 studies, 766 were evaluated against full study inclusion criteria, and we acquired full text for 8. Of these, 4 studies were excluded, and the remaining 4 were combined with the 6 studies identified from the previous meta-analysis, yielding 10 studies for qualitative synthesis. Full patient data were not available for 1 of these studies, resulting in 9 studies with individual patient data, which were included in the quantitative synthesis.Results: Of the 1258 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 47.1 (11.9) years, and 944 (75.0%) were female. A 2-stage random effects approach showed that patients receiving MBCT had a reduced risk of depressive relapse within a 60-week follow-up period compared with those who did not receive MBCT (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.82). Furthermore, comparisons with active treatments suggest a reduced risk of depressive relapse within a 60-week follow-up period (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97). Using a 1-stage approach, sociodemographic (ie, age, sex, education, and relationship status) and psychiatric (ie, age at onset and number of previous episodes of depression) variables showed no statistically significant interaction with MBCT treatment. However, there was some evidence to suggest that a greater severity of depressive symptoms prior to treatment was associated with a larger effect of MBCT compared with other treatments.Conclusions and Relevance: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy appears efficacious as a treatment for relapse prevention for those with recurrent depression, particularly those with more pronounced residual symptoms. Recommendations are made concerning how future trials can address remaining uncertainties and improve the rigor of the field.

Research into the effectiveness and mechanisms of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) requires reliable and valid measures of mindfulness. The 39-item Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-39) is a measure of mindfulness commonly used to assess change before and after MBIs. However, the stability and invariance of its factor structure have not yet been tested before and after an MBI; pre to post comparisons may not be valid if the structure changes over this period. Our primary aim was to examine the factor structure of the FFMQ-39 before and after Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) in adults with recurrent depression in remission using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Additionally, we examined whether the factor structure of the 15-item version (FFMQ-15) was consistent with that of the FFMQ-39, and whether it was stable over MBCT. Our secondary aim was to assess the general psychometric properties of both versions. CFAs showed that pre-MBCT, a four-factor hierarchical model (excluding the ‘observing’ facet) best fit the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 data, whereas post-MBCT, a five-factor hierarchical model best fit the data for both versions. Configural invariance across the time points was not supported for both versions. Internal consistency and sensitivity to change were adequate for both versions. The two FFMQ versions did not differ significantly from each other in terms of convergent and discriminant validity. Researchers should consider excluding the ‘observing’ subscale from comparisons of total scale/subscale scores before and after mindfulness interventions. Current findings support the use of the FFMQ-15 as an alternative measure in research where briefer forms are needed.