Mindfulness Meditation for Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review
Aleksandra Zgierska, David Rabago, Neharika Chawla, Kenneth Kushner, Robert E. Koehler, Alan Marlatt
Substance Abuse October 1, 2009 DOI: 10.1080/08897070903250019 via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractRelapse is common in substance use disorders even after treatment. This systematic review examined mindfulness meditation-based interventions for substance use disorders, identifying 25 eligible manuscripts from over 2000 abstracts. The studies included 8 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled nonrandomized trials, 6 noncontrolled prospective studies, 2 qualitative studies, and 1 case report. Overall, preliminary evidence suggests mindfulness meditation may be efficacious and safe, but conclusive data for its use as a treatment are lacking. Most studies had significant methodological limitations, and it remains unclear which individuals with substance use disorders might benefit most. Future trials need larger sample sizes and should assess both effect size and mechanisms of action.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Systematic review Randomized Qualitative Case report Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Population | Individuals with substance use disorders |
| Topics | Meditation |
| Keywords | Psychological intervention Substance use Randomized controlled trial Mindfulness meditation Clinical psychology |
| Citations | 349 |
| Key finding | Preliminary evidence suggests mindfulness meditation may be efficacious and safe for substance use disorders, but conclusive data are lacking due to significant methodological limitations. |
Abstract
Relapse is common in substance use disorders (SUDs), even among treated individuals. The goal of this article was to systematically review the existing evidence on mindfulness meditation-based interventions (MM) for SUDs. The comprehensive search for and review of literature found over 2000 abstracts and resulted in 25 eligible manuscripts (22 published, 3 unpublished: 8 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled nonrandomized, 6 noncontrolled prospective, and 2 qualitative studies, and 1 case report). When appropriate, methodological quality, absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, and effect size were assessed. Overall, although preliminary evidence suggests MM efficacy and safety, conclusive data for MM as a treatment of SUDs are lacking. Significant methodological limitations exist in most studies. Further, it is unclear which persons with SUDs might benefit most from MM. Future trials must be of sufficient sample size to answer a specific clinical question and should target both assessment of effect size and mechanisms of action.