Maintaining Treatment Fidelity of Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention Intervention for Alcohol Dependence: A Randomized Controlled Trial Experience

Mindfulness-based interventions for substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are highly prevalent and associated with a substantial public health burden. Although evidence-based interventions exist for treating SUDs, many individuals remain symptomatic despite treatment, and relapse is common.Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been examined for the treatment of SUDs, but available evidence is mixed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of MBIs for SUDs in terms of substance use outcomes, craving and adverse events compared to standard care, further psychotherapeutic, psychosocial or pharmacological interventions, or instructions, waiting list and no treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to April 2021: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We searched two trial registries and checked the reference lists of included studies for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs testing a MBI versus no treatment or another treatment in individuals with SUDs. SUDs included alcohol and/or drug use disorders but excluded tobacco use disorders. MBIs were defined as interventions including training in mindfulness meditation with repeated meditation practice. Studies in which SUDs were formally diagnosed as well as those merely demonstrating elevated SUD risk were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty RCTs met our inclusion criteria, with 35 RCTs involving 2825 participants eligible for meta-analysis. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and most were at high risk of detection bias. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) versus no treatment Twenty-four RCTs included a comparison between MBI and no treatment. The evidence was uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to no treatment on all primary outcomes: continuous abstinence rate (post: risk ratio (RR) = 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.14, 1 RCT, 112 participants; follow-up: RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.01, 1 RCT, 112 participants); percentage of days with substance use (post-treatment: standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.05, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.47, 4 RCTs, 248 participants; follow-up: SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.54, 3 RCTs, 167 participants); and consumed amount (post-treatment: SMD = 0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.52, 3 RCTs, 221 participants; follow-up: SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.66, 2 RCTs, 142 participants). Evidence was uncertain for craving intensity and serious adverse events. Analysis of treatment acceptability indicated MBIs result in little to no increase in study attrition relative to no treatment (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, 21 RCTs, 1087 participants). Certainty of evidence for all other outcomes was very low due to imprecision, risk of bias, and/or inconsistency. Data were unavailable to evaluate adverse events. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) versus other treatments (standard of care, cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, support group, physical exercise, medication) Nineteen RCTs included a comparison between MBI and another treatment. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to other treatments on continuous abstinence rate at post-treatment (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.44, 1 RCT, 286 participants) and follow-up (RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.16, 1 RCT, 286 participants), and on consumed amount at post-treatment (SMD = -0.42, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.39, 1 RCT, 25 participants) due to imprecision and risk of bias. The evidence suggests that MBIs reduce percentage of days with substance use slightly relative to other treatments at post-treatment (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.03, 5 RCTs, 523 participants) and follow-up (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.17, 3 RCTs, 409 participants). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of MBIs relative to other treatments on craving intensity due to imprecision and inconsistency. Analysis of treatment acceptability indicated MBIs result in little to no increase in attrition relative to other treatments (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26, 14 RCTs, 1531 participants). Data were unavailable to evaluate adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with no treatment, the evidence is uncertain regarding the impact of MBIs on SUD-related outcomes. MBIs result in little to no higher attrition than no treatment. In comparison with other treatments, MBIs may slightly reduce days with substance use at post-treatment and follow-up (4 to 10 months). The evidence is uncertain regarding the impact of MBIs relative to other treatments on abstinence, consumed substance amount, or craving. MBIs result in little to no higher attrition than other treatments. Few studies reported adverse events.

Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention in Individuals with Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to understand the current state of the art about the effectiveness of mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP) on individuals with substance use disorders (SUD), taking into account not only SUD variables (e.g., cravings, frequency of use) but also other relevant clinical variables (e.g., anxiety and depressive symptoms, quality of life).

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted to identify studies that investigate MBRP interventions on individuals with SUD. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were synthesized and assessed using systematic review methods.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the present review. The methodological quality of the included studies was moderately strong. Nine studies (69.2%) used the traditional 16 h MBRP program. Six studies (46.1%) chose to use a co-intervention treatment ranging from the treatment as usual (TAU) to cognitive behavioral therapy. All but one study indicated that their interventions produced positive effects on at least one addiction outcome measure. None of the interventions were evaluated across different settings or populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some heterogeneity regarding the type of MBRP program used, results support the effectiveness of these interventions in the SUD population, especially in reducing cravings, decreasing the frequency of use, and improving depressive symptoms.

Mindfulness-based therapy compared to cognitive behavioral therapy for opioid-treated chronic low back pain: Protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is disabling and costly. Existing therapies have proven suboptimal, with many patients resorting to long-term opioid therapy, which can cause harms. Cognitive behavioral (CBT) and mindfulness-based (MBT) therapies can be effective and offer unique skills for safe pain coping. This article describes the protocol for a study evaluating comparative effectiveness of CBT and MBT in adults with opioid-treated CLBP.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT).

SETTINGS

Community and outpatient care.

PARTICIPANTS

Planned enrollment of 766 adults (383/group) with CLBP treated with long-term opioids (≥3 months; ≥15 mg/day morphine-equivalent dose).

INTERVENTIONS

CBT or MBT consisting of eight weekly therapist-led, two-hour group sessions, and home practice (≥30 min/day, 6 days/week) during the 12-month study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Main outcome measures, collected by self-report at baseline, then three, six, nine and 12 months post-entry, include co-primary measures: pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale) and function (Oswestry Disability Index), and secondary measures: quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study) and average daily opioid dose (Timeline Followback). Baseline scores of depression, anxiety, and opioid misuse questionnaires will be assessed as potential contributors to the heterogeneity of treatment response. Intention-to-treat, linear mixed-effects analysis will examine treatment effectiveness. Qualitative data will augment the quantitative measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This will be the largest RCT comparing CBT and MBT in opioid-treated CLBP. It will provide evidence on the impact of these interventions, informing clinical decisions about optimal therapy for safe, effective care, improving quality of life and decreasing opioid-related harm among adults with refractory CLBP.

Addictive Behavior Change and Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Current Research and Future Directions

PURPOSE

Addictive behaviors are difficult to change and result in high rates of relapse following change attempts. A number of effective treatment approaches have been developed to treat addictive behaviors (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapies). More recently, there has been an increase in the development and evaluation of mindfulness-based interventions for addictive behaviors. This article discusses the history of mindfulness-based interventions for addictive behaviors and recent advances in treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mindfulness-based interventions are as effective as existing evidence-based treatments for addictive behaviors. Further understanding of the neurobiological changes that occur could help identify the components of mindfulness-based interventions that are most helpful and which individuals may benefit most from mindfulness-based intervention.

SUMMARY

Additional large scale randomized controlled trials are needed for a better understanding of the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions. Future research should look at optimizing mindfulness-based interventions for specific settings and patient populations, as well as dissemination and implementation.

Reporting of Treatment Fidelity in Mindfulness-Based Intervention Trials: A Review and New Tool using NIH Behavior Change Consortium Guidelines

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are in the fourth decade of adaptation and testing, yet little is known about their level of treatment fidelity. Treatment fidelity is a methodological strategy used to monitor and enhance the reliability and validity of behavioral interventions. The Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium (BCC) put forth recommendations covering five components of treatment fidelity: design, training, delivery, receipt, and enactment. We conducted a literature review to describe how these five components of treatment fidelity are reported in published main outcomes articles of MBI efficacy trials among adult participants. Our search yielded 202 articles and we identified 25 (12%) described study treatment fidelity. All 25 studies reported on design, n=24 (96%) reported on training, n=23 (92%) reported on delivery, n=23 (92%) reported on receipt, and n=16 (64%) reported on enactment. Eleven (44%) articles analyzed measures of receipt and enactment with a participant outcome. Fourteen (56%) articles reported on all five fidelity components. There was high variation in the way each component was conducted and/or reported, making comparisons across articles difficult. To address the prevailing limitation that the majority of MBI efficacy studies did not detail treatment fidelity, we offer the Treatment Fidelity Tool for MBIs adapted from the BCC guidelines to help researchers monitor and report these methods and measures in a simple and standardized format. By using this tool, researchers have the opportunity to improve the transparency and interpretability of the MBI evidence base.

Mindfulness-based relapse prevention for alcohol dependence: Findings from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of mindfulness-based relapse prevention for alcohol dependence (MBRP-A) intervention on drinking and related consequences.

METHODS

123 alcohol-dependent adults in early recovery, recruited from outpatient treatment programs, were randomly assigned to MBRP-A (intervention plus usual-care; N = 64) or Control (usual-care-alone; N = 59) group. MBRP-A consisted of eight-weekly sessions and home practice. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 8 weeks and 26 weeks (18 weeks post-intervention), and compared between groups using repeated measures analysis.

RESULTS

Outcome analysis included 112 participants (57 MBRP-A; 55 Control) who provided follow-up data. Participants were 41.0 ± 12.2 years old, 56.2% male, and 91% white. Prior to "quit date," they reported drinking on 59.4 ± 34.8% (averaging 6.1 ± 5.0 drinks/day) and heavy drinking (HD) on 50.4 ± 35.5% of days. Their drinking reduced after the "quit date" (before enrollment) to 0.4 ± 1.7% (HD: 0.1 ± 0.7%) of days. At 26 weeks, the MBRP-A and control groups reported any drinking on 11.5 ± 22.5% and 5.9 ± 11.6% of days and HD on 4.5 ± 9.3% and 3.2 ± 8.7% of days, respectively, without between-group differences (ps ≥ 0.05) in drinking or related consequences during the follow-up period. Three MBRP-A participants reported "relapse," defined as three-consecutive HD days, during the study. Subgroup analysis indicated that greater adherence to session attendance and weekly home practice minutes were associated with improved outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

MBRP-A as an adjunct to usual-care did not show to improve outcomes in alcohol-dependent adults in early recovery compared to usual-care-alone; a return to drinking and relapse to HD were rare in both groups. However, greater adherence to MBRP-A intervention may improve long-term drinking-related outcomes.

Intervention integrity in mindfulness-based research: strengthening a key aspect of methodological rigor

To ensure methodological rigour, research on Mindfulness-Based Programs (MBPs) should include systems for assessing and reporting the integrity of the intervention. The critical variable of the quality of the teaching and the degree of adherence to the curriculum are likely to influence research outcomes and their interpretation. Currently, three tools for assessing intervention integrity in the MBP field have been developed, but they need further research and development. Research going forward needs to include systematic methods for demonstrating and verifying the integrity of the MBP, both to ensure the rigor of individual studies and to enable different studies of the same MBP to be fairly and validly compared with each other.