Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40502528›Full record

ArticleBrain, behavior, & immunity - health2025

Psychoneuroimmunology of Mindfulness: What works, how it works, and for whom?

Ivana Buric

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain, behavior, & immunity - health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ivana BuricDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a major risk factor for mental and physical health disorders, chronic stress presents a critical public health challenge. Over the past decades, mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have gained empirical support as a promising approach to mitigating its harmful effects. However, important research gaps remain in the psychoneuroimmunology of mindfulness. This article synthesises the current state of research and identifies three central gaps that offer future directions for advancing the field. The first gap concerns the lack of a unified theoretical framework in mindfulness research, which hinders progress and cross-disciplinary integration. Researchers are invited to use the testable INterdiSciPlinary TheoretIcal FRamEwoRk (INSPIRER) that integrates the psychological, neural, and immune mechanisms by which mindfulness produces broad benefits across different levels of observation. The second gap refers to individual differences in responses to MBIs, emphasising the need for precision approaches to discover who benefits most and for whom these interventions may be contraindicated. Baseline levels of psychopathology are some of the participant characteristics that influence responses, but only further identification of participant characteristics and replication of existing ones will allow for more targeted interventions. The final gap addresses adaptations to existing MBIs that may further increase effectiveness or accessibility across diverse populations-such as varying intervention duration and doses of home practice or utilising technology. By addressing these three research gaps, we can advance the field of mindfulness in the 21st century and contribute to the development of cost-effective and personalised interventions that can be applied on a large scale to mitigate the effects of chronic stress and protect human health.

Indexed as

Chronic stressInflammationMeditationMind-body interventionsMindfulness

Identifiers

PMID40502528
PMCPMC12155858

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.