Can we respond mindfully to distressing voices? A systematic review of evidence for engagement, acceptability, effectiveness and mechanisms of change for mindfulness-based interventions for people distressed by hearing voices
Adapted mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) could be of benefit for people distressed by hearing voices. This paper presents a systematic review of studies exploring this possibility and we ask five questions: (1) Is trait mindfulness associated with reduced distress and disturbance in relation to hearing voices? (2) Are MBIs feasible for people distressed by hearing voices? (3) Are MBIs acceptable and safe for people distressed by hearing voices? (4) Are MBIs effective at reducing distress and disturbance in people distressed by hearing voices? (5) If effective, what are the mechanisms of change through which MBIs for distressing voices work? Fifteen studies were identified through a systematic search (n = 479). In relation to the five review questions: (1) data from cross-sectional studies showed an association between trait mindfulness and distress and disturbance in relation to hearing voices; (2) evidence from qualitative studies suggested that people distressed by hearing voices could engage meaningfully in mindfulness practice; (3) MBIs were seen as acceptable and safe; (4) there were no adequately powered RCTs allowing conclusions about effectiveness to be drawn; and (5) it was not possible to draw on robust empirical data to comment on potential mechanisms of change although findings from the qualitative studies identified three potential change processes; (i) reorientation of attention; (ii) decentring; and (iii) acceptance of voices. This review provided evidence that MBIs are engaging, acceptable, and safe. Evidence for effectiveness in reducing distress and disturbance is lacking however. We call for funding for adequately powered RCTs that will allow questions of effectiveness, maintenance of effects, mechanisms of change and moderators of outcome to be definitively addressed.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,224,719
of 26,454,856 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,599
of 35,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,030
of 277,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#47
of 555 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,454,856 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 555 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
