Background: Digital meditation-based interventions (MBIs) reach vast global audiences with millions of active users, yet concerns persist about the frequency and nature of adverse experiences (ie, AExs) occurring during meditation training. Some researchers have argued that AExs are substantially underdetected and reflect iatrogenic harm caused by meditation (ie, adverse effects [AEfs]). Others contend that these experiences largely reflect common stressors that would be experienced without meditation. These competing perspectives underscore the need for further research, particularly in the context of digital MBIs, the most widely used form of meditation training. Objective: This study examined the prevalence, predictors, and subjective evaluations of AExs during a digital MBI and tested whether reported experiences may be caused by meditation practice via comparisons between meditation-exposed and nonexposed participants. Methods: Data were drawn from 2 trials of the Healthy Minds Program. Exploratory study 1 (n=315) consisted of a sample of distressed US undergraduate students to estimate the prevalence of AExs and identify baseline predictors. Preregistered confirmatory study 2 (n=594) sampled distressed US adults from all 50 states to replicate findings from study 1 and to examine participants’ subjective evaluations of AExs. Study 2 additionally compared AEx rates between participants who did and did not complete guided meditations to assess whether AExs could be caused by meditation exposure. Study 3 (n=87) used qualitative methods to analyze study 1 participants’ responses to an open-ended question regarding their strategies for coping with AExs. Results: In studies 1 and 2, 27.9% (88/315) and 10.1% (40/396) of participants, respectively, reported at least one AEx during the study period, with 6.7% (21/315) and 3% (12/396) reporting functional impairment, largely aligning with previous research. Critically, in study 2, rates of AExs did not significantly differ between participants who did and did not complete guided meditations, suggesting that these experiences were not caused by meditation practice. Higher baseline depression, anxiety, loneliness, experiential avoidance, and perceived barriers to meditation predicted more frequent AExs. In studies 1 and 2, 89.8% (79/88) and 90% (36/40) of participants who reported AExs, respectively, indicated that they were glad to have learned to meditate. Qualitative analyses showed that participants used diverse coping strategies, often using skills learned through the Healthy Minds Program. Conclusions: AExs were relatively common but occurred at comparable rates among participants who did and did not meditate, challenging claims that such experiences were caused by meditation practice in distressed individuals. Although a small subset of participants reported some degree of functional impairment, most evaluated their AExs as tolerable and described their overall MBI experience as positive. Together, these findings highlight the importance of distinguishing AExs that likely reflect epiphenomena of preexisting distress or symptoms from iatrogenic harm attributable to MBIs. Trial Registration: Study 1: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04741529; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04741529; Study 2: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06282523; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06282523
<img src="https://jmir-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/thumbs/09106e6bad7f3f15798304e0c00626ec" />
Examining the Social and Mental Health Benefits of Virtual and In-Person Physical Activity Intervention Among Postsecondary Students: Quasi-Experimental Study
Association between plasma proBDNF levels and cognitive impairment in patients with alcohol dependence: a case–control and longitudinal study
Psychological Empowerment Program in Preventing Postpartum Depression Among Pregnant Women
Interventions: Behavioral: Psychological Empowerment Program
Sponsors: Miranie Safaringga
Active, not recruiting
Recommendations for Research and Clinical Implementation of Ambulatory Assessment, Mood Monitoring, Digital Phenotyping, and Remote Measurement Technology in Mood Disorders: Synthesis of Systematic Review Findings
Background: Ambulatory assessment and active and passive monitoring all offer a real-time, flexible approach to assessing mood and behavior in mood disorders. Despite their potential, concerns remain regarding the performance, usability, adherence, and potential safety of these tools. Objective: This study synthesizes the findings from 7 systematic reviews, integrating quantitative and qualitative data from randomized trials, observational studies, and user experience research to evaluate the performance, feasibility, acceptability, and clinical impact of ambulatory assessment and mood monitoring in people with depression and bipolar disorder. We assessed studies over the medium or long term (3 months or more). Methods: A summary of a series of systematic reviews was carried out by the authors—including meta-analyses (for quantitative data) and meta-syntheses (for qualitative data). Eight electronic databases were searched, and mixed methods studies were included. Studies were assessed for risk of bias. The results were checked for coherence, and recommendations were made by individuals with lived experience, methodologists, and psychiatrists. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality and strength of the evidence. Results: The 111 included studies included 19,945 participants and used 69 different ambulatory assessment protocols or mood-monitoring interventions. Key barriers to implementation were identified, including performance inconsistency, adverse effects, and user disengagement. Evidence-based recommendations are provided to guide future clinical and research applications. Conclusions: Ambulatory assessment and mood monitoring hold promise in research and clinical practice, yet their implementation requires more rigorous evaluation, greater personalization, and responsible, user-centered design. Crucially, these measures can add granularity and confirmation, but additional context is often required, and none of these measures are robust enough yet to replace current outcomes.
<img src="https://jmir-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/thumbs/a83582c454b5b6028210d2cb063318df" />

