Search

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' 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., 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 [...]

Aboriginal Australians, including Aboriginal Health Workers (AHWs), smoke at rates double the non-Aboriginal population. This study utilized concept mapping methodology to identify and prioritize culturally relevant strategies to promote smoking cessation in AHWs. Stakeholder participants included AHWs, other health service employees and tobacco control personnel. Smoking cessation strategies (n = 74) were brainstormed using 34 interviews, 3 focus groups and a stakeholder workshop. Stakeholders sorted strategies into meaningful groups and rated them on perceived importance and feasibility. A concept map was developed using multi-dimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses. Ten unique clusters of smoking cessation strategies were depicted that targeted individuals, family and peers, community, workplace and public policy. Smoking cessation resources and services were represented in addition to broader strategies addressing social and environmental stressors that perpetuate smoking and make quitting difficult. The perceived importance and feasibility of clusters were rated differently by participants working in health services that were government-coordinated compared with community-controlled. For health service workers within vulnerable populations, these findings clearly implicate a need for contextualized strategies that mitigate social and environmental stressors in addition to conventional strategies for tobacco control. The concept map is being applied in knowledge translation to guide development of smoking cessation programs for AHWs.

Abstract Background Aboriginal Health Workers (AHWs) have a mandate to deliver smoking cessation support to Aboriginal people. However, a high proportion of AHWs are smokers and this undermines their delivery of smoking cessation programs. Smoking tobacco is the leading contributor to the burden of disease in Aboriginal Australians and must be prevented. Little is known about how to enable AHWs to quit smoking. An understanding of the factors that perpetuate smoking in AHWs is needed to inform the development of culturally relevant programs that enable AHWs to quit smoking. A reduction of smoking in AHWs is important to promote their health and also optimise the delivery of smoking cessation support to Aboriginal clients. Methods We conducted a fundamental qualitative description study that was nested within a larger mixed method participatory research project. The individual and contextual factors that directly or indirectly promote (i.e. perpetuate) smoking behaviours in AHWs were explored in 34 interviews and 3 focus groups. AHWs, other health service staff and tobacco control personnel shared their perspectives. Data analysis was performed using a qualitative content analysis approach with collective member checking by AHW representatives. Results AHWs were highly stressed, burdened by their responsibilities, felt powerless and undervalued, and used smoking to cope with and support a sense of social connectedness in their lives. Factors directly and indirectly associated with smoking were reported at six levels of behavioural influence: personal factors (e.g. stress, nicotine addiction), family (e.g. breakdown of family dynamics, grief and loss), interpersonal processes (e.g. socialisation and connection, domestic disputes), the health service (e.g. job insecurity and financial insecurity, demanding work), the community (e.g. racism, social disadvantage) and policy (e.g. short term and insecure funding). Conclusions An extensive array of factors perpetuated smoking in AHWs. The multitude of personal, social and environmental stressors faced by AHWs and the accepted use of communal smoking to facilitate socialisation and connection were primary drivers of smoking in AHWs in addition to nicotine dependence. Culturally sensitive multidimensional smoking cessation programs that address these factors and can be tailored to local needs are indicated.

Abstract Introduction Long-term measures to reduce tobacco consumption in Australia have had differential effects in the population. The prevalence of smoking in Aboriginal peoples is currently more than double that of the non-Aboriginal population. Aboriginal Health Workers are responsible for providing primary health care to Aboriginal clients including smoking cessation programs. However, Aboriginal Health Workers are frequently smokers themselves, and their smoking undermines the smoking cessation services they deliver to Aboriginal clients. An understanding of the barriers to quitting smoking experienced by Aboriginal Health Workers is needed to design culturally relevant smoking cessation programs. Once smoking is reduced in Aboriginal Health Workers, they may then be able to support Aboriginal clients to quit smoking. Methods We undertook a fundamental qualitative description study underpinned by social ecological theory. The research was participatory, and academic researchers worked in partnership with personnel from the local Aboriginal health council. The barriers Aboriginal Health Workers experience in relation to quitting smoking were explored in 34 semi-structured interviews (with 23 Aboriginal Health Workers and 11 other health staff) and 3 focus groups (n = 17 participants) with key informants. Content analysis was performed on transcribed text and interview notes. Results Aboriginal Health Workers spoke of burdensome stress and grief which made them unable to prioritise quitting smoking. They lacked knowledge about quitting and access to culturally relevant quitting resources. Interpersonal obstacles included a social pressure to smoke, social exclusion when quitting, and few role models. In many workplaces, smoking was part of organisational culture and there were challenges to implementation of Smokefree policy. Respondents identified inadequate funding of tobacco programs and a lack of Smokefree public spaces as policy level barriers. The normalisation of smoking in Aboriginal society was an overarching challenge to quitting. Conclusions Aboriginal Health Workers experience multilevel barriers to quitting smoking that include personal, social, cultural and environmental factors. Multidimensional smoking cessation programs are needed that reduce the stress and burden for Aboriginal Health Workers; provide access to culturally relevant quitting resources; and address the prevailing normalisation of smoking in the family, workplace and community.