Exploring the effect if accommodating for preferences on the outcomes of mindfulness-based interventions

Abstract

Section A
Background. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are becoming increasingly popular but tend to be administered on a ‘one-size-fits-all’ basis. Individualising MBIs may increase their efficacy, but it is not yet clear how. Accounting for preference is one possible way of personalising practices but has not yet been reviewed. A narrative review was conducted exploring whether preference impacted outcomes in studies which included at least one MBI.
Methods. A systematic search of five databases and one register identified sixteen records eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. Included studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2; Sterne et al., 2019) tool, and an original risk of bias tool developed specifically for studies including preference.
Results. Included studies were of differing quality, and across a range of interventions and populations. Preference aims tended to be secondary or exploratory and most data relating to preference were correlational. The overarching pattern was one of null findings with very few studies reporting statistically significant relationships between preference and outcomes.
Conclusions. Though tentative initial conclusions can be drawn that preference does not have a strong effect on outcomes in the case of MBIs, overall results were inconclusive due to the limitations of the included studies and more research is needed.

Section B
Objectives. Brief, self-guided mindfulness practices are becoming increasingly popular, yet it is unclear for whom and in what situations they may be most effective. Personalising brief mindfulness interventions by offering a choice could improve outcomes and longer-term engagement; this needs to be tested experimentally.
Method. An experimental study examined whether offering a choice of a brief, single-session, self-guided mindfulness practice compared to random allocation to practice impacted the effects of practice relative to control. The primary outcome measure was state mindfulness. Secondary measures were mood, quality of practice, and the intention to practice again. Two-hundred and forty participants were randomised to one of three conditions: allocation by preference; random allocation; or audiobook control. All conditions were approximately 10-minutes.
Results. Both mindfulness groups (allocation by preference and random allocation) demonstrated significantly higher levels of state mindfulness post-intervention and reported a greater intention to practice again compared to control. There were no statistically significant differences between groups on mood or practice quality measures. Contrary to hypotheses, there were no statistically significant differences between allocation by preference and random allocation groups on any of the measures.
Conclusion. Brief, self-guided mindfulness practices are associated with increased state mindfulness and self-reported intention to practice again in the future. Allocating based on preference did not have an impact on outcomes in this study.

Date of Award	2026
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	Canterbury Christ Church University