Key Takeaways
Extended Takeaways
- This active-control design tested MBSR against a time- and attention-matched stress education program rather than a wait-list, making the between-group differences on CGI-S, CGI-I, and BAI more clinically persuasive than findings from uncontrolled mindfulness studies.
- On the primary clinician-rated HAMA outcome, both groups improved significantly, but the treatment arm ×— time interaction was not significant (F1,87 = 1.38, P = .244), suggesting MBSR's added benefit may be better captured by global improvement and self-reported anxiety than by a somatically weighted anxiety scale.
- The response advantage with MBSR was clinically meaningful: 29/44; 66% responded versus 14/35; 40% with SME (P = .025), with a risk ratio of 1.65 (95% CI, 1.04-2.60) and number needed to treat of 3.9 (95% CI, 2.23-26.19).
- Among participants not taking psychiatric medications, sleep improved more with MBSR than SME, with PSQI mean change score [SD] for MBSR = 2.6 [3.6], SME = 1.0 [1.9], so mindfulness training may be especially relevant when insomnia is part of the GAD presentation.
- MBSR showed measurable benefit under acute performance stress: STAI-S scores dropped from 53.9 to 40.8 versus 52.2 to 45.2 with SME, and SUDS scores dropped from 53.2 to 28.7 versus 50.5 to 39.4, indicating improved coping during a standardized laboratory challenge rather than symptom change alone.
- Positive self-appraisal during stress improved specifically with mindfulness training, as SSPS-P increased from 15.9 to 18.6 with MBSR but shifted from 16.9 to 16.5 with SME, while negative self-statements decreased in both groups without a between-group difference; this pattern suggests MBSR may enhance adaptive self-talk more than it reduces negative cognitions.
