ArticleEvidence & policy : a journal of research, debate and practice2025
Leveraging research for health insurance coverage of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction: insights from policy makers, patients and practitioners.
Article in Evidence & policy : a journal of research, debate and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) is a well-studied treatment that health insurers typically do not cover in the United States. To understand how research can best support efforts towards coverage, researchers must partner with individuals who occupy diverse roles within a health system (for example, policy makers and practitioners). Purpose: We sought to understand from key informants (policy makers, health insurers, healthcare administrators, clinicians, MBSR students/patients and teachers): the barriers/facilitators of MBSR coverage, how they use research to make decisions, and which research outcomes they find most important. We also sought to understand whether perspectives for individuals with direct policy influence differed from those without. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews informed by the SPIRIT Action Framework with a role-diverse advisory group. Data were analysed using a rapid data condensation approach. Results: Responses of those with and without direct policy-making influence were generally aligned. Research was framed as important to coverage decisions. When considering coverage decisions, participants reported wanting information about: (1) MBSR's worthiness as a covered treatment (is it 'good', usable and a sound financial investment?) and (2) a clearer definition of the service and its coverage. Barriers were identified related to both the billing code being created as well as being used, although MBSR's ability to address the policy priority of mental health in an un-stigmatising way could facilitate coverage. Participants also recommended next steps to advance the case for coverage. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that research is frequently integrated into decision making across roles, though other factors are weighed in coverage decisions.
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.