Trial reportScientific reports2024
Meditation dosage predicts self- and teacher-perceived responsiveness to an 18-month randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02977819 (Interventional Study in Cognitively Intact Seniors Aiming to Assess the Effects of Meditation Training and Foreign Language Learning on Behavioral, Biological and Neuroimaging Measures), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Interventional Study in Cognitively Intact Seniors Aiming to Assess the Effects of Meditation Training and Foreign Language Learning on Behavioral, Biological and Neuroimaging Measures
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the factors that predict why some individuals perceive to respond more to meditation training than others could impact the development, efficacy, adherence levels, and implementation of meditation-based interventions. We investigated individual-level variables associated with self- and teacher-perceived responsiveness to longer-term meditation training. This study presents a secondary analysis of the Age-Well trial (NCT02977819, 30/11/2016) and includes 90 healthy older adults (65-84 years) that were randomised to an 18-month meditation training or a non-native language (English) training. Responsiveness was measured post-intervention using participants' and teachers' ratings of four psychological domains (connection, positive/negative emotions, meta-awareness) in relation to two contexts (during sessions, in daily life), teachers' perception of overall benefit, and a global composite comprising all self- and teacher-perceived responsiveness measures. Linear regression modelling indicates that, when including baseline variables (sex, education, neuroticism, cognition, expectancy) and engagement (hours of formal practice during intervention), only higher levels of engagement were associated with higher global composite scores (standardised estimate = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.24-0.77, p < 0.001). Global composite scores were not correlated with pre-post changes in well-being. Findings indicate that more time spent practising meditation was related to greater perceived intervention effects. We suggest that future studies closely monitor levels of engagement and map reasons for disengagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.