Effects of an integrated mindfulness intervention for veterans with diabetes distress: a randomized controlled trial

Meditation for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Interventions incorporating meditation to address stress, anxiety, and depression, and improve self-management, are becoming popular for many health conditions. Stress is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and clusters with other modifiable behavioural risk factors, such as smoking. Meditation may therefore be a useful CVD prevention strategy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of meditation, primarily mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) and transcendental meditation (TM), for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers on 14 November 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of 12 weeks or more in adults at high risk of CVD and those with established CVD. We explored four comparisons: MBIs versus active comparators (alternative interventions); MBIs versus non-active comparators (no intervention, wait list, usual care); TM versus active comparators; TM versus non-active comparators.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were CVD clinical events (e.g. cardiovascular mortality), blood pressure, measures of psychological distress and well-being, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included other CVD risk factors (e.g. blood lipid levels), quality of life, and coping abilities. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs (6971 participants), with most studies at unclear risk of bias. MBIs versus active comparators (29 RCTs, 2883 participants) Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure were reported in six trials (388 participants) where heterogeneity was considerable (SBP: MD -6.08 mmHg, 95% CI -12.79 to 0.63, I2 = 88%; DBP: MD -5.18 mmHg, 95% CI -10.65 to 0.29, I2 = 91%; both outcomes based on low-certainty evidence). There was little or no effect of MBIs on anxiety (SMD -0.06 units, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.13; I2 = 0%; 9 trials, 438 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or depression (SMD 0.08 units, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.24; I2 = 0%; 11 trials, 595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Perceived stress was reduced with MBIs (SMD -0.24 units, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.03; I2 = 0%; P = 0.03; 6 trials, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on well-being (SMD -0.18 units, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.32; 1 trial, 63 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on smoking cessation (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.68; I2 = 79%; 6 trials, 1087 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported CVD clinical events or adverse events. MBIs versus non-active comparators (38 RCTs, 2905 participants) Clinical events were reported in one trial (110 participants), providing very low-certainty evidence (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.42). SBP and DBP were reduced in nine trials (379 participants) but heterogeneity was substantial (SBP: MD -6.62 mmHg, 95% CI -13.15 to -0.1, I2 = 87%; DBP: MD -3.35 mmHg, 95% CI -5.86 to -0.85, I2 = 61%; both outcomes based on low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence of reductions in anxiety (SMD -0.78 units, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.41; I2 = 61%; 9 trials, 533 participants; low-certainty evidence), depression (SMD -0.66 units, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.41; I2 = 67%; 15 trials, 912 participants; low-certainty evidence) and perceived stress (SMD -0.59 units, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.29; I2 = 70%; 11 trials, 708 participants; low-certainty evidence) but heterogeneity was substantial. Well-being increased (SMD 0.5 units, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.91; I2 = 47%; 2 trials, 198 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on smoking cessation (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.13; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 453 participants; low-certainty evidence). One small study (18 participants) reported two adverse events in the MBI group, which were not regarded as serious by the study investigators (RR 5.0, 95% CI 0.27 to 91.52; low-certainty evidence). No subgroup effects were seen for SBP, DBP, anxiety, depression, or perceived stress by primary and secondary prevention. TM versus active comparators (8 RCTs, 830 participants) Clinical events were reported in one trial (201 participants) based on low-certainty evidence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.49). SBP was reduced (MD -2.33 mmHg, 95% CI -3.99 to -0.68; I2 = 2%; 8 trials, 774 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with an uncertain effect on DBP (MD -1.15 mmHg, 95% CI -2.85 to 0.55; I2 = 53%; low-certainty evidence). There was little or no effect on anxiety (SMD 0.06 units, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.33; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 200 participants; low-certainty evidence), depression (SMD -0.12 units, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 421 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or perceived stress (SMD 0.04 units, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.57; I2 = 70%; 3 trials, 194 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported adverse events or smoking rates. No subgroup effects were seen for SBP or DBP by primary and secondary prevention. TM versus non-active comparators (2 RCTs, 186 participants) Two trials (139 participants) reported blood pressure, where reductions were seen in SBP (MD -6.34 mmHg, 95% CI -9.86 to -2.81; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD -5.13 mmHg, 95% CI -9.07 to -1.19; I2 = 18%; very low-certainty evidence). One trial (112 participants) reported anxiety and depression and found reductions in both (anxiety SMD -0.71 units, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.32; depression SMD -0.48 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.11; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported CVD clinical events, adverse events, or smoking rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the large number of studies included in the review, heterogeneity was substantial for many of the outcomes, which reduced the certainty of our findings. We attempted to address this by presenting four main comparisons of MBIs or TM versus active or inactive comparators, and by subgroup analyses according to primary or secondary prevention, where there were sufficient studies. The majority of studies were small and there was unclear risk of bias for most domains. Overall, we found very little information on the effects of meditation on CVD clinical endpoints, and limited information on blood pressure and psychological outcomes, for people at risk of or with established CVD. This is a very active area of research as shown by the large number of ongoing studies, with some having been completed at the time of writing this review. The status of all ongoing studies will be formally assessed and incorporated in further updates.

5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Remote Delivery of Mindful Movement Within Healthcare Systems: Lessons Learned From the Veterans Health Administration

Mindful Movement approaches have been a growing part of the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Innovations in tele-health technology had been an important initiative before the public health emergency to meet the needs of rural veterans as well as challenges in getting to a physical location for care. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this transition to tele-delivery of many practices including mindful movement. This paper aims to share lessons learned from virtual delivery of mindful movement as part of clinical and well-being programs in VA. Benefits of virtual care discussed include the convenience and decreased travel burden; accessibility for adaptive movement options; translation to home practice; and shifting the emphasis to interoceptive skills-building supportive of self-efficacy for exploring and identifying safe movement. Important challenges are also identified such as technology related barriers; teachers trained to meet the need of offering adaptations for a heterogenous population and supporting interoceptive skill-building; and supporting both physical and psychological safety. Examples are provided of medical groups incorporating virtual mindful movement within programs for diabetes and pain care to further explore the potential benefit of these practices being integrated within the care itself, rather than as a separate practice. It is hoped that the lessons learned will provide support for Veterans and staff, and the wider health care community, in what they need to participate in virtual care that is high quality, accessible, and meets the needs for greater health and well-being.

The mediating role of cognitive flexibility in the relationship between cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mindfulness in patients with type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to examine the mediating role of cognitive flexibility in the relationship between cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mindfulness in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The research was conducted by correlation method) using Structural Equation Modeling). The statistical population consisted of all women and men with type 2 diabetes. Two hundred fifty-three samples were selected by convenience sampling method. The participants responded to the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, the Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills, and the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory.

RESULTS

The results showed that the total path coefficient between the adaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mindfulness (β = 0.243, P = 0.005) was positive and significant, and the total path coefficient between the maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mindfulness (β = -0.453, P = 0.001) was negative and significant. The path coefficient between cognitive flexibility and mindfulness (β = 0.273, P = 0.009) was positive and significant. The indirect path coefficient between the adaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mindfulness (β = 0.094, P = 0.007) was positive and significant, and the indirect path coefficient between the maladaptive cognitive emotion regulation strategies and mindfulness (β = -0.117, P = 0.009) was negative and significant.

CONCLUSION

Improving emotion regulation skills increases cognitive flexibility and mindfulness in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The Effects of Mindfulness on Glycemic Control in People with Diabetes: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Background: Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions in improving glycemic control. By enhancing attention control, emotion regulation, and self-awareness, mindfulness shows promise in managing the lifestyle factors associated with cardiovascular disease risk. However, the impact of mindfulness on glycemic control in people with diabetes remains unclear. This overview aims to summarize the current evidence of the impact of mindfulness interventions on glycemic control in people with diabetes and propose suggestions for future research. Methods: The author searched electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The current evidence regarding the effects of mindfulness on glycemic control in people with diabetes was summarized. Results: This review evaluated a total of five systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Mindfulness interventions show potential for improving glycemic control as measured by hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, as well as reducing stress, depression, and anxiety in people with diabetes. Four out of five systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported a significant reduction in HbA1c levels by approximately 0.3%. However, the available studies lacked adequate description of key characteristics of study subjects, such as body mass index, medication, and disease conditions, which are essential for assessing the impact of mindfulness on glycemic control. Moreover, there was significant heterogeneity in the intervention methods employed across the included RCTs. Conclusions: Mindfulness interventions are effective in improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. However, the overall quality of the reviewed studies raises uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of mindfulness as a treatment for people with diabetes. Further research is necessary to elucidate the biological effects of mindfulness on physiological, neurological, and endocrinological functions in humans.

5. Facilitating Positive Health Behaviors and Well-being to Improve Health Outcomes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.