ArticleNpj mental health research2026
Mindfulness-based interventions and cognitive behavioral therapy for depression, anxiety, and stress in adults with chronic conditions: a stratified subgroup meta-analysis.
Article in Npj mental health research, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anxiety, depression, and stress are common in individuals with diabetes and cancer and are associated with poor self-management and well-being. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are widely used in nonpharmacological treatments, but their comparative effectiveness remains unclear. We conducted a stratified subgroup meta-analysis to indirectly compare CBT and MBIs in adults with diabetes or cancer, examining moderators including condition, delivery modality, and dose. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and ScienceDirect through October 2025. Randomized trials (N = 107; n = 23,585) reporting validated post-intervention outcomes were pooled using random-effects models, with subgroup and meta-regression analyses performed in RStudio. Overall, CBT and MBIs significantly improved outcomes (SMD = -0.78). CBT showed larger effects, particularly for depression (SMD = -0.95) and diabetes (SMD = -1.21), although comparisons were indirect and heterogeneity was substantial. Stronger effects were observed in group-based interventions lasting ≥8 weeks, providing ≥8 contact hours, and including homework or booster components; higher session frequency was also associated with greater improvement (β = -0.086; p < 0.01). MBIs may offer scalable benefits, particularly in cancer care. These findings support condition-tailored psychosocial strategies, although results should be interpreted cautiously.
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.