MBSR effects on positive psychological traits and experiential avoidance in head and neck cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

IF 4.1 2区医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY

European Journal of Psychotraumatology Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-19 DOI:10.1080/20008066.2025.2501822

Zheng Zhang, Qingqin Zhang, Ping Lu, Nurul Izzah Shari, Nik Ruzyanei Nik Jaafar, Mohd Razif Mohamad Yunus, Mohammad Farris Iman Leong Bin Abdullah

{"title":"MBSR effects on positive psychological traits and experiential avoidance in head and neck cancer: a randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Zheng Zhang, Qingqin Zhang, Ping Lu, Nurul Izzah Shari, Nik Ruzyanei Nik Jaafar, Mohd Razif Mohamad Yunus, Mohammad Farris Iman Leong Bin Abdullah","doi":"10.1080/20008066.2025.2501822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Data on the effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) positive psychological traits and experiential avoidance (EA) among cancer patients are lacking.Objective: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to: (1) compare the efficacy between MBSR and treatment-as-usual (TAU) control groups in increasing posttraumatic growth (PTG), hope, and optimism and reducing EA across time measurements (T0, T1, and T2) among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and (2) evaluate the mediation effects of hope, optimism, and EA on the relationship between MBSR and PTG.Methods: A total of 80 HNC participants were randomized to MBSR (n = 40) and TAU (n = 40) groups with the researchers and data analyst blinded, and the group allocation of the participants was concealed. A one-hour MBSR session was conducted once a week, with 45 minutes of home assignments, for six weeks in the MBSR group. The outcomes across time measurements were compared using a mixed linear model following intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Mediation effects of hope, optimism, and EA on the relationship between MBSR and PTG were assessed with PROCESS.Results: MBSR significantly increased the degree of optimism from T0 to T1 (mean difference = 1.825, 95% CI = 0.907-2.743, SE = 0.381, p < .001) with a medium effect size (d = 0.563) and from T1 to T2 (mean difference = 1.650, 95% CI = 0.829-2.470, SE = 0.328, p < .001) with a medium effect size (d = 0.630). Initially, MBSR did not increase the degree of hope from T0 to T1 (p = .677), but it significantly increased hope from T1 to T2 (mean difference = 2.524, 95% CI = 1.676-3.373, SE = 0.340, p < .001) with a medium effect size (d = 0.735). Conversely, MBSR did not sustain the changes in the degree of PTG and EA beyond T1. EA partially mediated the relationship between MBSR and PTG, but not hope and optimism.Conclusion: MBSR can be recommended as part of the treatment regimen for HNC patients.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04800419.","PeriodicalId":12055,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","volume":"16 1","pages":"2501822"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12090264/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2025.2501822","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Data on the effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) positive psychological traits and experiential avoidance (EA) among cancer patients are lacking.Objective: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to: (1) compare the efficacy between MBSR and treatment-as-usual (TAU) control groups in increasing posttraumatic growth (PTG), hope, and optimism and reducing EA across time measurements (T₀, T₁, and T₂) among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and (2) evaluate the mediation effects of hope, optimism, and EA on the relationship between MBSR and PTG.Methods: A total of 80 HNC participants were randomized to MBSR (n = 40) and TAU (n = 40) groups with the researchers and data analyst blinded, and the group allocation of the participants was concealed. A one-hour MBSR session was conducted once a week, with 45 minutes of home assignments, for six weeks in the MBSR group. The outcomes across time measurements were compared using a mixed linear model following intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Mediation effects of hope, optimism, and EA on the relationship between MBSR and PTG were assessed with PROCESS.Results: MBSR significantly increased the degree of optimism from T₀ to T₁ (mean difference = 1.825, 95% CI = 0.907-2.743, SE = 0.381, p < .001) with a medium effect size (d = 0.563) and from T₁ to T₂ (mean difference = 1.650, 95% CI = 0.829-2.470, SE = 0.328, p < .001) with a medium effect size (d = 0.630). Initially, MBSR did not increase the degree of hope from T₀ to T₁ (p = .677), but it significantly increased hope from T₁ to T₂ (mean difference = 2.524, 95% CI = 1.676-3.373, SE = 0.340, p < .001) with a medium effect size (d = 0.735). Conversely, MBSR did not sustain the changes in the degree of PTG and EA beyond T₁. EA partially mediated the relationship between MBSR and PTG, but not hope and optimism.Conclusion: MBSR can be recommended as part of the treatment regimen for HNC patients.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04800419.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

正念减压对头颈癌患者积极心理特征和经验回避的影响：一项随机对照试验。

背景：关于正念减压（MBSR）、积极心理特质和经验回避（EA）对癌症患者的影响的数据缺乏。目的：本随机对照试验（RCT）旨在：(1)比较正念减压与常规治疗（TAU）对照组在头颈癌（HNC）患者创伤后成长（PTG）、希望和乐观以及减少EA的跨时间测量（T0、T1和T2）方面的疗效；(2)评估希望、乐观和EA在正念减压与PTG之间的中介作用。方法：80名HNC参与者随机分为MBSR组（n = 40）和TAU组（n = 40），研究人员和数据分析人员采用盲法，参与者分组分配不公开。正念减压组每周进行一次一小时的正念减压练习，其中有45分钟的家庭作业，持续六周。使用意向治疗（ITT）分析后的混合线性模型比较不同时间测量的结果。采用PROCESS量表评估希望、乐观、EA对正念减压与PTG关系的中介作用。结果：MBSR显著提高了T0 ~ T1和T1 ~ T2的乐观程度（平均差值= 1.825,95% CI = 0.907 ~ 2.743, SE = 0.381, p d = 0.563）和T1 ~ T2的乐观程度（平均差值= 1.650,95% CI = 0.829 ~ 2.470, SE = 0.328, p d = 0.630）。最初，从T0到T1， MBSR并没有增加希望程度（p = 0.677），但从T1到T2， MBSR显著增加了希望程度（平均差异= 2.524,95% CI = 1.676 ~ 3.373, SE = 0.340, p d = 0.735）。相反，在T1之后，MBSR不能维持PTG和EA程度的变化。EA在一定程度上介导了正念减压和焦虑感之间的关系，但对希望和乐观没有作用。结论：正念减压疗法可作为HNC患者治疗方案的一部分。试验注册：ClinicalTrials.gov标识符：NCT04800419。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Psychotraumatology Multiple-

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

12.00%

发文量

153

审稿时长

18 weeks

期刊介绍： The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) is a peer-reviewed open access interdisciplinary journal owned by the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) aims to engage scholars, clinicians and researchers in the vital issues of how to understand, prevent and treat the consequences of stress and trauma, including but not limited to, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive disorders, substance abuse, burnout, and neurobiological or physical consequences, using the latest research or clinical experience in these areas. The journal shares ESTSS’ mission to advance and disseminate scientific knowledge about traumatic stress. Papers may address individual events, repeated or chronic (complex) trauma, large scale disasters, or violence. Being open access, the European Journal of Psychotraumatology is also evidence of ESTSS’ stand on free accessibility of research publications to a wider community via the web. The European Journal of Psychotraumatology seeks to attract contributions from academics and practitioners from diverse professional backgrounds, including, but not restricted to, those in mental health, social sciences, and health and welfare services. Contributions from outside Europe are welcome. The journal welcomes original basic and clinical research articles that consolidate and expand the theoretical and professional basis of the field of traumatic stress; Review articles including meta-analyses; short communications presenting new ideas or early-stage promising research; study protocols that describe proposed or ongoing research; case reports examining a single individual or event in a real‑life context; clinical practice papers sharing experience from the clinic; letters to the Editor debating articles already published in the Journal; inaugural Lectures; conference abstracts and book reviews. Both quantitative and qualitative research is welcome.