4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of a Brief Mindfulness-Based Program on Stress in Health Care Professionals at a US Biomedical Research Hospital : A Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is a brief mindfulness-based program effective and feasible in reducing stress among health care professionals during work hours?

          Findings

          In this randomized clinical trial including 78 participants randomized to a 5-session (7.5-hour total) mindfulness program or a life-as-usual control, participants in the mindfulness program reported reduced stress and anxiety compared with life-as-usual controls at the end of the intervention.

          Meaning

          This randomized clinical trial found that this brief mindfulness intervention was an effective way of reducing stress in a health care setting.

          Abstract

          This randomized clinical trial examines the effect of a brief mindfulness-based program on stress reduction among health care professionals in a US research hospital.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Stress among health care professionals is well documented. The use of mindfulness-based interventions to reduce stress has shown promising results; however, the time commitment of typical programs can be a barrier to successful implementation in health care settings.

          Objective

          To determine the efficacy and feasibility of a brief mindfulness-based program to reduce stress during work hours among health care professionals.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This intent-to-treat randomized clinical trial was conducted among full-time health care professionals at the Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, between September 2017 and May 2018. Participants were randomized to receive mindfulness-based self-care (MBSC) training or life-as-usual control. Data were analyzed from June 2018 to January 2020.

          Interventions

          The MBSC intervention included 5 weekly, 1.5-hour in-class mindfulness practice sessions.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Stress level was the primary outcome, assessed with the Perceived Stress Scale 10-Item version. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, burnout, positive and negative affect, mindfulness (trait and state), and self-care. Assessments were taken at baseline and at the end of the intervention (week 5) in the intervention and control groups, and at follow-up (week 13) in the intervention group to test for a maintenance effect. A postprogram evaluation was also obtained.

          Results

          Of 82 randomized participants, 78 who completed the study at week 5 were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 32 [23-48] years; 65 [83%] women), including 43 participants in the MBSC group and 35 participants in the control group. At the end of the intervention, compared with the control group, the MBSC group had reduced levels of stress (mean [SD] score, 17.29 [5.84] vs 18.54 [6.30]; P = .02) and anxiety (mean [SD] score, 2.58 [1.52] vs 4.23 [1.73]; P < .001), and improved positive affect (mean [SD] score, 35.69 [7.12] vs 31.42 [7.27]; P < .001), state mindfulness (mean [SD] score, 3.74 [1.18] vs 2.78 [1.16]; P < .001), and mindful self-care (mean [SD] score, 7.29 [2.44] vs 5.54 [2.77]; P < .001). Burnout, negative affect, and trait mindfulness levels did not differ between groups. Changes within the MBSC group through follow-up included sustained reductions in stress (change, –6.14; 95% CI, –7.84 to –4.44; P < .001), anxiety (change, –1.46; 95% CI, –1.97 to –0.94; P < .001), trait mindfulness (change, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.90; P < .001), and state mindfulness (change, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.39 to 2.39; P < .001).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This randomized clinical trial found that this brief mindfulness-based intervention was an effective and feasible means to reduce stress in health care professionals. Larger studies are needed to assess the effects on clinical care and patient outcomes.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03781336

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Association of an educational program in mindful communication with burnout, empathy, and attitudes among primary care physicians.

          Primary care physicians report high levels of distress, which is linked to burnout, attrition, and poorer quality of care. Programs to reduce burnout before it results in impairment are rare; data on these programs are scarce. To determine whether an intensive educational program in mindfulness, communication, and self-awareness is associated with improvement in primary care physicians' well-being, psychological distress, burnout, and capacity for relating to patients. Before-and-after study of 70 primary care physicians in Rochester, New York, in a continuing medical education (CME) course in 2007-2008. The course included mindfulness meditation, self-awareness exercises, narratives about meaningful clinical experiences, appreciative interviews, didactic material, and discussion. An 8-week intensive phase (2.5 h/wk, 7-hour retreat) was followed by a 10-month maintenance phase (2.5 h/mo). Mindfulness (2 subscales), burnout (3 subscales), empathy (3 subscales), psychosocial orientation, personality (5 factors), and mood (6 subscales) measured at baseline and at 2, 12, and 15 months. Over the course of the program and follow-up, participants demonstrated improvements in mindfulness (raw score, 45.2 to 54.1; raw score change [Delta], 8.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.0 to 10.8); burnout (emotional exhaustion, 26.8 to 20.0; Delta = -6.8; 95% CI, -4.8 to -8.8; depersonalization, 8.4 to 5.9; Delta = -2.5; 95% CI, -1.4 to -3.6; and personal accomplishment, 40.2 to 42.6; Delta = 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.6); empathy (116.6 to 121.2; Delta = 4.6; 95% CI, 2.2 to 7.0); physician belief scale (76.7 to 72.6; Delta = -4.1; 95% CI, -1.8 to -6.4); total mood disturbance (33.2 to 16.1; Delta = -17.1; 95% CI, -11 to -23.2), and personality (conscientiousness, 6.5 to 6.8; Delta = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5 and emotional stability, 6.1 to 6.6; Delta = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.7). Improvements in mindfulness were correlated with improvements in total mood disturbance (r = -0.39, P < .001), perspective taking subscale of physician empathy (r = 0.31, P < .001), burnout (emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment subscales, r = -0.32 and 0.33, respectively; P < .001), and personality factors (conscientiousness and emotional stability, r = 0.29 and 0.25, respectively; P < .001). Participation in a mindful communication program was associated with short-term and sustained improvements in well-being and attitudes associated with patient-centered care. Because before-and-after designs limit inferences about intervention effects, these findings warrant randomized trials involving a variety of practicing physicians.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Move over ANOVA: progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

            The analysis of repeated-measures data presents challenges to investigators and is a topic for ongoing discussion in the Archives of General Psychiatry. Traditional methods of statistical analysis (end-point analysis and univariate and multivariate repeated-measures analysis of variance [rANOVA and rMANOVA, respectively]) have known disadvantages. More sophisticated mixed-effects models provide flexibility, and recently developed software makes them available to researchers. To review methods for repeated-measures analysis and discuss advantages and potential misuses of mixed-effects models. Also, to assess the extent of the shift from traditional to mixed-effects approaches in published reports in the Archives of General Psychiatry. The Archives of General Psychiatry from 1989 through 2001, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 425. Studies with a repeated-measures design, at least 2 groups, and a continuous response variable. The first author ranked the studies according to the most advanced statistical method used in the following order: mixed-effects model, rMANOVA, rANOVA, and end-point analysis. The use of mixed-effects models has substantially increased during the last 10 years. In 2001, 30% of clinical trials reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry used mixed-effects analysis. Repeated-measures ANOVAs continue to be used widely for the analysis of repeated-measures data, despite risks to interpretation. Mixed-effects models use all available data, can properly account for correlation between repeated measurements on the same subject, have greater flexibility to model time effects, and can handle missing data more appropriately. Their flexibility makes them the preferred choice for the analysis of repeated-measures data.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Who's Stressed? Distributions of Psychological Stress in the United States in Probability Samples from 1983, 2006, and 20091

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                25 August 2020
                August 2020
                25 August 2020
                : 3
                : 8
                : e2013424
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
                [2 ]Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
                [3 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                [4 ]Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                [5 ]Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
                [6 ]National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
                [7 ]Division of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: June 2, 2020.
                Published: August 25, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13424
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Ameli R et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Rezvan Ameli, PhD, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr, Bldg 10, Bethesda, MD 20892 ( amelir@ 123456mail.nih.gov ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Ameli had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Ameli, Sinaii, Zoosman.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Ameli, Sinaii, Rusch.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Sinaii, Rusch.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Ameli, Luna, Panahi.
                Supervision: Ameli, Berger.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Disclaimer: The views of this article are those of the authors and do not represent an official position of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
                Article
                zoi200505
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.13424
                7448827
                32840621
                874c543b-5b4f-4867-a27f-92d36a1d27cc
                Copyright 2020 Ameli R et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 14 February 2020
                : 2 June 2020
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Complementary and Alternative Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article