Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Nov 17;18(11):e0283169. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283169

Epigenetic, psychological, and EEG changes after a 1-week retreat based on mindfulness and compassion for stress reduction in healthy adults: Study protocol of a cross-over randomized controlled trial

Gustavo G Diez 1,2, Ignacio Martin-Subero 3, Rosaria M Zangri 4, Marta Kulis 3, Catherine Andreu 5, Ivan Blanco 4, Pablo Roca 1,6, Pablo Cuesta 7, Carola García 1,8, Jesús Garzón 1, Carlos Herradón 1, Miguel Riutort 1, Shishir Baliyan 9, César Venero 9, Carmelo Vázquez 1,4,*
Editor: Jan Christopher Cwik10
PMCID: PMC10656013  PMID: 37976257

Abstract

Introduction

The main objective of the study will be to evaluate the effects of two widely used standardized mindfulness-based programs [Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Compassion Cultivation Training (CCT)], on epigenetic, neurobiological, psychological, and physiological variables.

Methods

The programs will be offered in an intensive retreat format in a general population sample of healthy volunteer adults. During a 7-day retreat, participants will receive MBSR and CCT in a crossover design where participants complete both programs in random order. After finishing their first 3-day training with one of the two programs, participants will be assigned to the second 3-day training with the second program. The effects of the MBSR and CCT programs, and their combination, will be measured by epigenetic changes (i.e., DNA methylation biomarkers), neurobiological and psychophysiological measures (i.e., EEG resting state, EKG, respiration patterns, and diurnal cortisol slopes), self-report questionnaires belonging to different psychological domains (i.e., mindfulness, compassion, well-being, distress, and general functioning), and stress tasks (i.e., an Arithmetic Stress Test and the retrieval of negative autobiographical memories). These measures will be collected from both groups on the mornings of day 1 (pre-program), day 4 (after finishing the first program and before beginning the second program), and day 7 (post-second program). We will conduct a 3-month and a 12-month follow-up using only the set of self-report measures.

Discussion

This study aims to shed light on the neurobiological and psychological mechanisms linked to meditation and compassion in the general population. The protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT05516355; August 23, 2022).

1. Introduction

In recent years there has been an outburst of scientific studies on the positive effects of mindfulness-based interventions (Mindfulness-Based Interventions, MBIs) on physical and mental health [1]. Two of the most researched programs related to the development of mindfulness and compassion are, respectively, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) [2], focused on attentional training and a non-judgmental attitude, and Compassion Cultivation Training (CTT) [3, 4], more focused on the structured training of a compassionate and self-compassionate attitude. These are highly structured programs, of short duration (i.e., typically delivered in 8 weeks/16 hours format), that have shown positive effects, both for general and clinical populations, as reflected in many meta-analyses and systematic reviews [59], including programs using briefer formats (e.g., single-session to 2-week multi-session formats) [10].

The fundamental objective of this study is to explore the potential changes in epigenetic variables, psychological distress, well-being, brain activity, cortisol levels, and reactivity to stress, that can be observed following MBIs. The way to address this question is through an intensive intervention in a retreat format, a procedure that allows control of important variables (e.g., food, environmental conditions, etc.), and administering all the components of the standard MBSR and CCT programs in their entirety. There is already meta-analytic evidence on the positive effects of these intensive multi-day programs in healthy individuals [11]. Although there is some evidence that attentional changes might be involved in the psychological changes observed after a meditation retreat [12], there is a need to examine the mechanisms of action through which meditation practice produces its effects [13]. Most theoretical models published to date emphasize the central role of attention regulation, which is thought to underpin emotional and cognitive flexibility [14], which in turn enhances emotion regulation processes [15], and the ability to maintain non-judgmental awareness of thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Theoretical models also emphasize the role of compassion and self-compassion [16] in promoting change due to MBI practices [1721]. However, the extant evidence comparing the self-reported psychological effects of MBSR and CCT programs indicates that both programs have similar effects [22, 23], although reached through different mechanisms [24].

Regarding the biological effects of MBIs, there is consistent meta-analytic evidence showing that they produce significant physiological changes in parameters like a reduction in oxygen consumption, blood pressure, and heart rate [25], which are contrary to those that occur during the stress response [26]. These changes have also been observed in three-day intensive meditation retreats [27]. Similarly, although the evidence for brain volumetric change is uncertain [28], there is data on changes in frontoparietal and default network connectivity during resting state tests [29, 30]. There is also promising evidence that intensive intervention practices, in a retreat format, are associated with significant changes in gene expression that might be potentially regulated by epigenetic mechanisms. For example, an 8-day silent guided meditation retreat can modify gene expression, in particular genes related to the immune response [31]. However, the brain mechanisms and molecular activity are not yet well understood. Along the lines of some previous research on detectable epigenetic changes in brief intensive meditation interventions aimed at reducing stress [3236], we intend to test whether epigenetic changes are one of the mediating mechanisms in the observable psychological changes following an intervention. We will also analyze whether changes in brain connectivity (measured with EEG in resting state) and in the diurnal cortisol rhythms occur throughout the programs.

Although research on the comparative effects of MBSR and CCT has shown the existence of some particular mediators [24], the effects of a sequential intervention of both types of training on the same individuals are not known. This sequential approach is important to evaluate whether there are additive effects of the programs and whether the order of the intervention (one more focused on attentional aspects and the other more on socio-emotional factors) can facilitate psychological and neurobiological changes. Thus, we aim to analyze the existence of differential psychobiological changes in two types of intensive psychological programs (MBSR and CCT), and whether the sequence of the programs (using a cross-over design), does significantly affect the results.

As, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study using a sequential design with two intensive meditation modalities, it is difficult to formulate specific hypotheses regarding the separate and combined effects of the MBSR and CCT programs on the selected outcomes. Thus, considering the two MBIs jointly, we expect that both programs will significantly: a) modify the DNA methylation and expression levels of specific genes and a reduction of the DNA methylation-based biological clock; b) reduce participants’ levels of psychological distress while increasing their levels of psychological functioning (i.e., mindfulness, compassion, emotion regulation, and well-being); c) change the EEG spectral profile of the resting state brain activity (i.e., changes in the balance between Alpha (8–14 Hz) and Theta (4–8 Hz) frequency bands and, regarding the organization of the brain functional networks, a modulation of the difference between the activation of the default mode network and the one corresponding to the salience network); d) alter awakening and bedtime cortisol levels leading to a steeper Diurnal Cortisol Slope (DCS); e) improve the efficacy of mood regulation following a negative mood induction (using an autobiographical memory task); f) reduce participants’ reactivity in an objective experimental stress test (i.e., Arithmetic Stress Test). In addition, given the multidisciplinary nature of the present project, we intend to provide a comprehensive view of potential changes in various areas of biological and psychological functioning and their interrelationships.

In general, we expect an overall pattern of results in which changes will be significantly higher for the combined effects of both MBIs than for each program separately. Moreover, based on previous literature comparing standard MBSR and CCT programs [24], we expect no major differences in primary outcomes between both programs, although the mechanisms of change may be different; in general, changes in MBSR will be mediated by cognitive variables (e.g., mindfulness) whereas changes in CCT will be mediated by socio-emotional variables (e.g., compassion). We also expect that the self-reported psychological changes associated with the MBIs will remain 3 months after the programs.

2. Methods

2.1 Study design overview

We used the SPIRIT reporting guidelines. Participants will be randomly assigned to two groups starting with MBSR or CCT. A stratified randomization procedure, using the Research Randomizer Program (https://www.randomizer.org), performed by the principal investigator (CV), will be used to maintain the same percentage of male and female participants in each group. Participants from both groups will take part in a 7-day retreat, including training in both meditation-based practices. Participants will be blinded to group allocation starting with MBSR or CCT and will not receive any information of any kind about the study hypotheses. (IB and RZ will be in charge of participant recruitment and perform the randomization of each study group). Using a cross-over design, the participants will undergo their second training during the last three days of the retreat. Biological and psychological measures will be collected from both groups in the mornings of day 1 (before beginning the programs), day 4 (after the first program and before the beginning of the second program), and day 7 (at the end of the program). All psychological questionnaires will be administered online. Also, before going to bed, participants will be given a short questionnaire with eight questions about their general functioning during the day and their satisfaction with the progress of the program. Furthermore, a 3-month and a 12-month follow-up assessment will be conducted in both groups only for psychological questionnaires. (See Fig 1).

Fig 1. Cross-over design.

Fig 1

2.2 Participants: Recruitment and selection

Individuals from the general population will be recruited through the Nirakara-Lab website, a university-associated research center specializing in Mindfulness and Compassion-Based programs for the general population. Participants will be invited to join the study on the university’s official website offering the MBSR and CCT programs (www.nirakara.com). This is a widely known national website for the general public interested in research and training in meditation. An e-mail will be sent to the thousands of individuals registered in the website newsletter. In any case, participation in the study will be open to any interested individual who meets the inclusion and exclusion conditions. To control for potential self-selection biases, which is a common shortcoming of MBIs research [3739], there will be statistical controls on key issues such as years and type of previous meditation practice, if any, sociodemographic information, and mental health status. Individuals interested in participating in the retreat will be interviewed by members of the research team (RZ and CA) to screen their suitability for the study. Inclusion criteria will be being a healthy adult between 25 and 65 years old who is interested in meditation and compassion techniques to regulate their mood and stress. Exclusion criteria include having a current or past self-reported diagnosable serious or disabling mental disorder (in particular, PTSD, major depression, psychotic disorders, and/ or use of alcohol or drugs disorders) or having a current or past (i.e., less than 5 years ago) medical or physical condition that may affect the immune system (i.e., autoimmune disease, chronic severe infections, HIV, cancer), pregnancy, serious chronic illnesses, as well as the consumption of psychotropic drugs. Individuals with current habits (i.e., smoking, alcoholism, substance abuse) or taking specific medications (e.g., corticoids) that might affect the immune system are also excluded. Also, individuals planning to travel from a different time zone or long-travel times will be excluded as that might affect the immune system.

The screening procedure will be conducted as follows: 1) First contact will be made through an online form expressing interest and commitment to participating in the study, where participants will be provided with some information on the retreat (date, location, and program characteristics) and will complete information on demographics, physical and psychological health history, and meditation experience. A waiting list will be formed for participants who did not sign up in time and wished to be considered in case a place became available. An expected final sample of 52 people will take part in the retreat being randomised to the MBSR training or CCT training for the first part of the retreat. All participants will complete the first arm of the study and then, after a half-day break, will be allocated to the opposite condition for the second study arm (following a cross-over design). There will not be a longer wash-out period due to the difficulties of extending the participants’ stay in the retreat for more days. However, in psychological studies with a cross-over design (e.g., [40]) there are usually no long periods between treatments. Moreover, introducing a wash-out period (days, weeks, or months) would introduce difficult-to-control confounders (e.g., different life events experienced by individuals) and would make comparability of treatments more difficult.

Participants will pay the cost of the retreat (i.e., meals and accommodation only) and will not receive any economic compensation for their contribution to the study. Participation requires informed consent, provided by the principal investigator (PI) or authorized full members of the research team, in which all the conditions of the study are reported. In case of any adverse effect, which is very unlikely in this type of intervention, participants may leave the study at any time without having to offer any explanation and without any kind of penalty. Furthermore, the team will facilitate any kind of help requested by participants during the retreat. The collection of biological information is innocuous, and blood and saliva samples will be collected by nursing professionals. Participants will be allowed to drop out at any point during the study as stated in the informed consent.

The study has been approved by the University Ethics Committee (Ref. 22/449-E, July 2022) and has been pre-registered (clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier: #NCT (NCT05516355). Any modification to the protocol will be reported both to the Ethics Committee and the trial registration site. Participants will be informed in advance of the results of the study to be published in scientific journals.

2.3 Sample size

According to G*Power software, we need 21 participants per group to obtain a power of .95 to detect a mean effect size of .37 (based on well-being outcomes in mindfulness retreats, [11]), using order of intervention as a between-subject factor (MBSR first vs CCT first) and time as a within-subjects factor (5 times of assessment), with an alpha of .05, a power 95%, and a 2-tailed test. In anticipation that there may be last-minute dropouts in pre-registrants or incomplete data in the sample collection or the analysis of the planned psychological or biological data, we have increased the sample by an additional 20% to 26 participants for each condition (52 in total). This sample size further corresponds to the average size of standard meditation retreats [11, 41] and in studies of brain activity in meditators [29, 30].

2.4 Components and structure of the programs

Each program will comprise standard MBSR and CCT protocols in an intensive format to fit a retreat mode. Throughout the retreat, participants will be in silence, not talking to each other or using electronic devices. Each program will last 3 days in total, and all participants will go through both programs. On each retreat day, participants will spend a total of 4.25 hours of sitting meditation, 2 hours of walking meditation, 2 hours of explanations and discussing with the instructors, doubts or problems related to the practices, and 1 hour of mindful body movements (yoga/qigong). In total, participants will have 9 hours of practice each day. (A description of the contents of the programs is shown in Table 1).

Table 1. Description of the main practices of the retreat.

Practice Description Protocol Day
Basics of Mindfulness Practices and insights into mindfulness and acceptance. In this part, explanations are given on how to approach practices during the retreat, and how to deal with distractions, unpleasant bodily experiences, or difficult emotional states. MBSR / CCT 1
Yoga-Qigong Simple body exercises to relax tensions, unblock joint patterns, and develop mindfulness in movement. In the case of CTT, references are also made to self-care and self-compassion in movement. MBSR / CCT 1
Walking meditation The participant is trained in the ability to be aware while walking. The movement is slower than usual. Breathing and walking movements are integrated. In the MBSR protocol, awareness of the breath and the body is encouraged. In CCT, loving-kindness or compassion is developed while walking. MBSR / CCT 2
Body Scan Attention is brought to the various parts of the body. From the soles of the feet to the top of the head. The aim is to develop mindfulness. Every time there is a distraction, the attention is gently taken up again on the sensations of the body. MBSR 1
Awareness of Breathing Attention is focused on breathing. Two options are given, depending on the preference of the participants (i.e., focusing attention on the tactile sensations of air in the nostrils or on the sensation of the movement of the abdomen). MBSR 2
Awareness of Thoughts It aims to focus attention on the activity of the mind (i.e., on the spontaneous generation of thoughts and emotions). MBSR 3
Open Monitoring It is about accounting for the constant flow of subjective phenomena: cognition, perception, and emotion. Rather than choosing an object to focus attention, participants are encouraged to engage in a choiceless awareness in which subjective experience is continuously monitored. MBSR 3
Loving-kindness and compassion for a loved one Through visualization exercises of loved ones, practitioners are helped to recognize feelings of love whenever they arise. CCT 1
Self-Compassion Practising through assertions generates a feeling of self-acceptance and a desire to overcome suffering. CCT 2
Loving-kindness for one-self Meditation practices are aimed at teaching appreciation and gratitude for oneself through visualization and verbalization. CCT 2
Common humanity Through visualization practices, a sense of interconnectedness is developed (i.e., the knowledge that experiences of suffering are inherent to all human beings, as well as the pursuit of happiness). CCT 2
Compassion for others Through visualizations and verbalizations, it aims to develop compassion for others. Starting with a loved one, continuing with neutral people, and culminating with people with whom one has difficult relationships. CCT 3
Active compassion practice A practice known as tonglen in Tibetan Buddhism, it aims to develop a sense of compassion towards others. The participant visualizes how he or she can reduce suffering in other people by doing something beneficial for them. CCT 3

2.4.1 Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)

The MBSR is an 8-week standardized program [42] that aims to cultivate awareness by paying attention to the present moment with acceptance and a non-judgmental disposition. Training is delivered by two certified instructors at the University of Massachusetts Centre for Mindfulness (Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. www.umassmed.edu/cfm/) and Mindfulness Center at Brown University (https://www.brown.edu/public-health/mindfulness/home).

2.4.2 Compassion Cultivation Training (CCT)

The CCT is an 8-week standardized program [3, 43] aimed at cultivating compassion and empathy toward oneself and others, consisting of daily formal and informal practices. Training is delivered by two certified instructors at the Compassion Institute and Nirakara-Lab.

2.5 Study outcomes

2.5.1 Epigenetic changes

Samples of peripheral blood will be obtained and processed in situ, during the retreat. Participants’ blood samples will be collected in two standard tubes (10ml each) that contain EDTA as an anticoagulant. Blood samples will be processed immediately using the standardized Ficoll gradient centrifugation protocol to isolate mononuclear cells. These cells are cryopreserved directly (with 10% DMSO culture medium) and stored appropriately (in a -80 C freezer for short periods and liquid nitrogen for longer storage). Nucleic acids will be extracted in the laboratory of the Biomedical Epigenetics group, IDIBAPS (Barcelona), using DNA and RNA extraction kits. Once the nucleic acids are obtained, they will be stored in suitable freezers (-20 or -80°C) until their use for molecular profiling techniques, such as DNA methylation arrays (Infinium Methylation EPIC Bead Chip from Illumina, herein called “EPIC methylation arrays”), and gene expression by massive RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). (See Table 2).

Table 2. Study procedures at specific time points.
7-day retreat
Home baseline screening Day 1st (BL) Day 4th Day 7th 3- and 12-month follow-up
Epigenetic measures
 • DNA methylation levels x x x
 • Proportion of main blood cell types x x x
 • Epigenetic clocks x x x
Psychological measures (outcomes of programs)
 • Perceived Stress Scale x
 • Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) x x x x
 • Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15) x x x
 • Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) x x x
 • Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) x x x
 • State Difficulties in Emotion Regulation (S-DERS-21) x x x x
 • State Mindfulness Scale (SMS) x x x x
 • State Self-Compassion Scale (SSCS) x x x x
 • Fear of Compassion (FOC) x x x x
 • Hedonic and Arousal Affect Scale (HAAS) x x x x
 • Meditation-Related Adverse Effects Scale x x x
Psychological tasks
 • Arithmetic Stress Test x x x
 • Autobiographical memory retrieval x x x
 • Positive and Negative Affect Schedules (PANAS—state) x x x
 • State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-20) x x x
Psychophysiological laboratory
 • EEG recording (open- and closed-eyes) x x x
 • EKG recording x x x
 • Respiratory rate x x x
Cortisol activity
 • Saliva samples (bedtime and awakening) x x x

Note: BL = Baseline

2.5.2 Psychological measures

a) Self-report measures. Most of these measures were developed in studies with the general population and have been also used in previous MBI studies in healthy individuals [22]. They have shown good or excellent psychometric properties and cover selected psychological distress and functioning constructs (i.e., stress, anxiety, depression, mindfulness, compassion, well-being, and emotion regulation) and all will be administered online via Qualtrics with individualized links (Table 2):

  1. Psychological distress. Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) [44, 45].

  2. Psychological well-being. Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) [46, 47].

  3. Mindfulness. State Mindfulness Scale (SMS) [48].

  4. Anxiety. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-20) [49, 50].

  5. Somatic Symptoms. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15) [51, 52].

  6. Sleep difficulties. DSM-5 sleep difficulties [53].

  7. Compassion. State self-compassion State Self-compassion Scale (SSCS) [54, 55].

  8. Fear of Compassion. The Yourself subscale from the Fear of Compassion Scale [56].

  9. Emotion Regulation. State Difficulties in Emotion Regulation (S-DERS-21) [57, 58].

  10. Current mood. Positive and Negative Affect Schedules (PANAS) [59, 60].

  11. Daily assessments of psychological functioning. A 7-item scale to assess participants’ average state of mindfulness, mind wandering, compassion to others, self-compassion, well-being, the richness of life, and utility of the contents of the program every day.

  12. Affect in the last 3 days. Hedonic and Arousal Affect Scale (HAAS) [61].

  13. Meditation Adverse Effects. Meditation-Related Adverse Effects Scale–Mindfulness-Based Program (MRAESMBP) [62].

  14. Program satisfaction. Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) [63, 64].

b) Psychological stress tasks. b.1) Stress Reactivity. Arithmetic Stress Test: a standardized laboratory stress induction procedure, that is part of the Trier Social Stress Test [65, 66], will be used to assess participants’ stress reactivity. Individuals are asked to repeatedly subtract a given 2-digit number (i.e., 13) from a 4-digit number (e.g., 1022). These numbers were changed for each of the three assessment days. Participants are asked to write their responses on a personal computer as quickly as possible. Time is limited to 3 minutes to increase the stressful nature of the task. Pre-post stress level changes in mood will be assessed with the PANAS and STAI.

b.2) Emotion regulation. A 10-min retrieval of autobiographical negative memories. Participants will receive a link through Qualtrics for a baseline assessment (three days before the retreat) where they are asked to think about three negative autobiographical memories of events for which they felt responsible and made them feel negative emotions such as shame, guilt, and sadness. Participants will be asked to assign personal keywords (e.g., ‘traffic accident’), for each of the three memories, synthesizing the event. Each of the three negative events will be randomly assigned to the three respective assessment days so that participants were given the corresponding “keywords” when they begin the retrieval task. Participants are given 10 minutes to write down the memory as specifically as possible. Pre-post changes in their sadness, happiness, anxiety, serenity, shame, and guilt affect states will be assessed using a 0 (nothing) to 100 (very much) visual analog scale. These two laboratory psychological tasks will be completed by each individual while alone in a quiet room, using a portable computer.

2.5.3 Neurobiological laboratory measures

a) Brain electrical activity. Recording of EEG activity in resting state (alternating open and closed eyes, 6 min each condition) with four EE-225 64chEEG+24chBIP 16kHz devices with a laptop and eego EEG recording software. The sampling rate will be set at 1000 Hz and the reference is 7Z of the equidistant layout.

b) Respiratory activity. Respiration rate, which is related to attention training and psychological well-being [67], will be monitored by a respiration chest-band, during the EEG assessment session and will be registered using a piezoelectric sensor.

c) Cardiac activity. EKG activity will be monitored with dedicated electrodes during the EEG assessment session. Based on these recordings, we will analyze changes in EKG, heart rate, and heart rate variability (HRV) patterns

These recordings will be completed by everyone in laboratory spaces dedicated to the EEG assessments.

2.5.4 Salivary sampling and cortisol measurement

Participants will be given Salivette® cortisol saliva sample collection tubes (Sarstedt, Germany) that contain a sterile cotton swab for sample absorption along with detailed verbal and written instructions concerning sample collection. Diurnal Cortisol Slope and cortisol levels at bedtime and awakening will be measured at three different time points of the retreat (see Fig 1). Then, the saliva samples will be stored in the refrigerator until they are delivered to the laboratory after a few hours. Once in the laboratory, the samples will be centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 5 min, resulting in around 1.5–2.0 ml clear supernatant of low viscosity that will be stored at −80°C until the analyses of the salivary cortisol levels. Cortisol, the principal stress glucocorticoid produced by the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) [68], will be assessed using a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Salimetrics®) having an approximate sensitivity of <0.007 μg/dL.

Table 2 shows a description of all measures and time points.

2.6 Procedure

In arriving at the retreat centre, everyone will be informed about the retreatment rules (e.g., accommodation, silence rules, use of electronic devices, etc.) as well as his/her specific time schedules for each of the laboratory sessions. All laboratory sessions will be done on the morning of each assessment day. We will set up different laboratories for the tasks (one for blood extractions, one with nine computers to complete the self-report questionnaires, four EEG separate labs with portable equipment, and another four separate labs for the psychological tasks with one computer per room). The schedule of the assessments will be kept the same for each participant on the three assessment days. The order of the tasks will be the same for all participants (i.e., blood extraction, self-report questionnaires, EEG recording, autobiographical memory task, and arithmetic stress task). The expected total duration of each assessment session is approximately 90 minutes.

2.7 Statistical analysis plan

Independent t-tests for continuous data and chi-square test (χ2) for categorical data will be conducted to confirm that there were no demographic or clinical differences between groups at baseline. Repeated-measures ANOVAs will be conducted to analyse changes associated with the programs. For the autobiographical memory task and all the biological measures (i.e., genetic measures, EEG, EKG, respiratory rate, and cortisol in saliva), a 2 (Order of program) x 3 (Time) repeated measures ANOVA will be conducted. For the self-report psychological measures, a 2 (Order of program) x 4 (Time) ANOVA will be conducted. We will use age, sex, and previous meditation experience as covariates in the main analyses. Assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variances, sphericity, and homogeneity of covariances will be checked. Further analyses will include post-hoc, p-corrected comparisons (e.g., Bonferroni). All analyses will be performed with SPSS 28.0 (IBM Corp., 2021) or R Studio statistical software (R Core Team, 2021). Two-tailed tests will be used to determine significance at the 5% level.

The EPIC methylation arrays´ raw data will be normalised and filtered by a robust bioinformatics pipeline procedure [69]. We will then perform an unsupervised analysis of the data via hierarchical clustering, i.e., PCA and t-SNE (by R Studio). In parallel, taking advantage of the known DNA methylation signatures related to distinct cell types or molecular processes, we will: 1) characterize the proportion of different immune cells, and 2) determine the epigenetic age with Horvath’s model or other epigenetic clocks to capture the influence of lifestyle on the DNA methylome [70, 71]. This may reveal a link between the MBI programs and the immune response, inflammation, and cells’ physiological condition. Finally, we will focus on supervised analyses to identify differential DNA methylation biomarkers in the two groups (MBRS first vs CCT first) and time points: day 1(baseline), day 4 (program switch), and day 7 (post retreat).

The EEG signals will be assessed both at the sensor level and the source’s space. Source space reconstruction would be performed using the eLoretta procedure over the MNI template. The analysis will be conducted two-fold: 1) the power spectral profiles of each condition (eyes closed and eyes open) will be computed using the fast Fourier transform algorithm; 2) the functional networks will be calculated using a phase synchronization algorithm (i.e., phase locking value). The functional networks will be created using standard regions of interest defined over the AAL atlas.

Diurnal Cortisol Slope (DCS) will be calculated individually for each participant as a function of their respective bedtime and awakening times. DCS will be calculated as awakening cortisol subtracted from bedtime cortisol, divided by each subject’s total waking hours.

Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses will be conducted with all participants, regardless of session or outcome measure completion. The pattern and percentage of missing data will be explored before analysing the data. It should be noted that the chances of missing data will be minimized because the questionnaire administration format via Qualtrics does not allow progress to be made until all items in each questionnaire are completed. Binary logistic regression will be used to evaluate the assumption that data is Missing at Random (MAR). ITT mixed models (restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation) will be used to account for missing data MAR. If missing were not random (MNAR), we would conduct Multiple Imputation and Pattern Mixture Models incorporating the predictor responsible for the missingness into the model. In any case, sensitivity analysis will be performed, comparing the main outcomes between completers and imputed values. To safeguard the confidentiality of participants’ data, all samples will be anonymized with alpha-numeric codes. These codes will not carry any personal information. Personal data linked to the alpha-numeric code will not be included in any files used for data analyses and will remain separate from the main database. Data displayed in public repositories (e.g., GitHub or datadryad.org), linked to the resulting publications, will always be anonymized. Data supporting each published study will be included within the article and/or supporting materials. To improve blinding integrity [72], personnel who will analyse the data collected from the study are not aware of the treatment applied to any given group. The authors will be fully responsible for handling and analyzing data independently from any sponsor. All the questionnaires included in the protocol as well as a copy of the informed consent, are available at https://osf.io/gczas/?view_only=7864451a24cf4a82824f6f298b1bbf0f.

3. Discussion

With this study, we aim to shed light on two main aspects. Firstly, we will analyse the precise interaction between psychological and psychobiological changes associated with MBSR and CCT programs. Secondly, following the rationale clinical trials that have compared the effect of the order of administration of two different modalities of interventions [40, 73], we will conduct a cross-over design to explore whether it is important the order of intervention of mindfulness and compassion practices.

This is an ambitious study that attempts to analyze the effects of two meditation programs (MBSR and CCT) by integrating multidisciplinary perspectives. The study will offer a unique insight into the effects on epigenetic variables, using the most advanced analysis methods in the field [69]. Also, adding to current knowledge in the field [74], we aim to correlate epigenetic changes with changes in electrical brain activity and psychological variables, comparing the results before and after the interventions. Thus, we believe that this study offers a great possibility of data integration at various levels that is not common in this type of research. Furthermore, the study has been carefully designed to try to minimize potential biases that are common in meditation research [38, 75]. In this regard, the study employs methods of randomization, selection of well-validated measures, and blinding of statistical analyses.

However, we recognize that the protocol has some limitations. Participants in mindfulness studies are typically self-selected, which is a difficult problem to control in research on meditation procedures. Although the cross-over design will allow us to answer important research questions (e.g., the existence of additive effects of the two modalities), it is not certain that the results can be easily transferable to other settings. Also, the retreats include compact and intensive training that is offered in a short period of time, lacking homework exercises. However, although more time may be required to produce lasting psychobiological changes, previous studies support the idea that brief retreat interventions can detect change [35, 76]. Even in an 8-hour intensive mindfulness-based retreat, significant transcriptional [36] as well as DNA methylation changes were observed in blood samples, and affected in genes related to important cellular pathways (such as fatty acid metabolism, DNA repair, and chromatin remodeling, among others) [35]. Furthermore, differentially methylated CpGs were enriched in binding sites of particular transcription factors, involved in immune response and inflammation [35]. These findings suggest that the changes observed are not random, and seem to be induced by the meditation practice, even after only one day of intervention.

Although we do not know a priori whether we will be able to detect highly relevant epigenetic changes in the blood of the participants of our retreat, there is sufficient published evidence to expect some degree of epigenetic modulation after short periods of practice, supporting thus our experimental design. The same can be said about expected findings in self-report psychological measures. Although the retreat is to last one week, which is the most common duration for meditation retreats [41], it includes the standard contents of the MBSR and CCT programs. Thus, it seems plausible to find the expected significant effects associated with these intensive interventions in that relatively short period. Finally, the influence of the exposure to other contingencies associated with the retreat (e.g., silence, rest days, etc.) may contribute to the changes that may be found [7780]. We also recognize the limitation that the follow-up is restricted to psychological measures only. Apart from the enormous economic cost of repeating the epigenetic measures, which we cannot afford with our limited funds, it would be impossible to achieve as the participants live in different parts of the country and were recruited only for a one-week retreat.

We hypothesize that even in these very short interventions, we will be able to detect overall changes in meditation-related variables and well-being on both self-report and biological measures. Incidentally, by examining both psychological and psychobiological outcomes, our study aims to contribute a more holistic understanding of the transformative effects of mindfulness and compassion practices.

To summarize, this is an innovative study aimed at testing the effect of two standard meditation interventions (MBSR and CCT), administered in an intensive retreat format. There is an increasing need for interventions to improve the well-being of the population in a variety of formats. The administration of meditation programs in a relatively short retreat may be an important contribution to meditation studies in the general healthy population. In addition, the cross-over design of the study will provide insight into whether the order of the interventions (MBSR first or CCT first) may play a role in the delivery of these interventions. The design may also help to answer some basic questions in meditation research regarding the ingredients and sequence of the components of these interventions. Thus, our study could pave the way for more nuanced research into meditation-based interventions, especially in terms of optimizing intervention sequences for maximal benefit.

Given the increasing popularity of mindfulness and compassion practices and research in the general population, it is crucial to understand their effects on individuals who do not necessarily have clinical problems but seek personal growth, stress reduction, or well-being enhancement [5, 8183]. We hope that the rigorous approach of this study ensures the integrity of our findings, free from potential confounders related to health conditions. By understanding the effects of two consecutive interventions on a healthy cohort, we might offer evidence-based guidance on how these practices can serve as preventative measures for the broader community, potentially enhancing its well-being, and perhaps reducing the onset of mental health conditions, We also hope that, despite the potential limitations acknowledged in our design, the results generated by this ambitious study may shed light on the neurobiological and psychological mechanisms linked to meditation and compassion in the general population and may contribute to improving the scientific basis of these practices.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Nirakara Lab’s staff, Ignacio Jiménez and Claudia Caldera for their help throughout the project and all the personnel who will help us to administer the tasks and tests in our labs (Leyre Castillejo, Brenda Nadia Chino, Claudia Cogollos, Alberto del Cerro, Elena Diaz, Lucía Hernández, Marina Izquierdo, Ana Obeso, Ana Mar Pacheco, Ester Santamaria, Lucia Torres), as well as Joaquin Martinez, Head of the Hematology Department of the Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre (Madrid, Spain) for letting us use his laboratory space, and his technicians Alicia Giménez, Laura Carneros Blanco and Lucía Sastre for their agreement to process biological samples. The support of Miguel Angel Casermeiro (Fundación General UCM) was also very valuable. Special thanks to Yago Piedra, director of the Real Colegio Maria Cristina (El Escorial, Madrid), and all his staff, for their support in preparing the retreat. We also thank Frank Zanow (ANT Neuro, Berlin, Germany) who kindly offered his help to provide technical support for the EEG recordings.

Data Availability

All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion. This paper only reports a research protocol but we include now an OSF link with all the the questionnaires of the protocol and the Inforemed consent.

Funding Statement

CV: Ministry of Science PID2019-108711GB-I00 RMZ:Spanish Ministry of Science FPI predoctoral fellowship (PRE2020-092011) GD: Mindfulness and Cognitive Science Chair of Complutense University of Madrid. The funders did not and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Creswell JD. Mindfulness interventions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2017;68: 491–516. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-042716-051139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kabat-Zinn J. An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1982;4: 33–47. doi: 10.1016/0163-8343(82)90026-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Goldin PR, Jazaieri H. The Compassion Cultivation Training (CCT) Program. Oxford Handb Compassion Sci. 2017;1: 1–16. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190464684.013.18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jazaieri H, McGonigal K, Jinpa T, Doty JR, Gross JJ, Goldin PR. A randomized controlled trial of compassion cultivation training: Effects on mindfulness, affect, and emotion regulation. Motiv Emot. 2014;38: 23–35. doi: 10.1007/s11031-013-9368-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.van Agteren J, Iasiello M, Lo L, Bartholomaeus J, Kopsaftis Z, Carey M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions to improve mental wellbeing. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5: 631–652. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01093-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Goyal M, Singh S, Sibinga EMS, Gould NF, Rowland-Seymour A, Sharma R, et al. Meditation programs for psychological stress and well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174: 357. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lv J, Liu Q, Zeng X, Oei TPS, Liu Y, Xu K, et al. The effect of four Immeasurables meditations on depressive symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2020;76: 101814. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101814 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zessin U, Dickhäuser O, Garbade S. The relationship between self-compassion and well-being: A meta-analysis. Appl Psychol Heal Well-Being. 2015;7: 340–364. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Spijkerman MPJ, Pots WTM, Bohlmeijer ET. Effectiveness of online mindfulness-based interventions in improving mental health: A review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clin Psychol Rev. The Authors; 2016;45: 102–114. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schumer MC, Lindsay EK, Creswell JD. Brief mindfulness training for negative affectivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018;86: 569–583. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.McClintock AS, Rodriguez MA, Zerubavel N. The Effects of Mindfulness Retreats on the Psychological Health of Non-clinical Adults: a Meta-analysis. Mindfulness (N Y). Mindfulness; 2019;10: 1443–1454. doi: 10.1007/s12671-019-01123-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Blanco I, Roca P, Duque A, Pascual T, Vazquez C. The effects of a 1-month meditation retreat on selective attention towards emotional faces: An eye-tracking study. Mindfulness (N Y). 2020;11: 219–229. doi: 10.1007/s12671-019-01247-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tang Y-Y, Hölzel BK, Posner MI. The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2015;16: 1–13. doi: 10.1038/nrn3916 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Malinowski P. Neural mechanisms of attentional control in mindfulness meditation. Front Neurosci. 2013;7. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Guendelman S, Medeiros S, Rampes H. Mindfulness and emotion regulation: Insights from neurobiological, psychological, and clinical studies. Front Psychol. 2017;8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gu J, Strauss C, Bond R, Cavanagh K. How do mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction improve mental health and wellbeing? A systematic review and meta-analysis of mediation studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2015;37: 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ferrari M, Hunt C, Harrysunker A, Abbott MJ, Beath AP, Einstein DA. Self-compassion interventions and psychosocial outcomes: A meta-analysis of RCTs. Mindfulness (N Y). 2019;10: 1455–1473. doi: 10.1007/s12671-019-01134-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kirby JN, Tellegen CL, Steindl SR. A meta-analysis of compassion-based interventions: Current state of knowledge and future directions. Behav Ther. 2017;48: 778–792. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2017.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sumantry D, Stewart KE. Meditation, mindfulness, and attention: a meta-analysis. Mindfulness (N Y). 2021;12: 1332–1349. doi: 10.1007/s12671-021-01593-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.MacBeth A, Gumley A. Exploring compassion: A meta-analysis of the association between self-compassion and psychopathology. Clin Psychol Rev. 2012;32: 545–552. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wilson AC, Mackintosh K, Power K, Chan SWY. Effectiveness of self-compassion related therapies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mindfulness (N Y). Mindfulness; 2019;10: 979–995. doi: 10.1007/s12671-018-1037-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Roca P, Diez GG, Castellanos N, Vazquez C. Does mindfulness change the mind? A novel psychonectome perspective based on Network Analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14: e0219793. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Roca P, Vazquez C. Brief meditation trainings improve performance in the emotional Attentional Blink. Mindfulness (N Y). 2020;11: 1613–1622. doi: 10.1007/s12671-020-01374-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Roca P, Vazquez C, Diez G, Brito-Pons G, McNally RJ. Not all types of meditation are the same: Mediators of change in mindfulness and compassion meditation interventions. J Affect Disord. 2021;283: 354–362. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.01.070 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pascoe MC, Thompson DR, Jenkins ZM, Ski CF. Mindfulness mediates the physiological markers of stress: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychiatr Res. 2017;95: 156–178. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dossett ML, Fricchione GL, Benson H. A new era for mind–body medicine. N Engl J Med. 2020;382: 1390–1391. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1917461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gardi C, Fazia T, Stringa B, Giommi F. A short mindfulness retreat can improve biological markers of stress and inflammation. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2022;135: 105579. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2021.105579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kral TRA, Davis K, Korponay C, Hirshberg MJ, Hoel R, Tello LY, et al. Absence of structural brain changes from mindfulness-based stress reduction: Two combined randomized controlled trials. Sci Adv. 2022;8: 2021.06.14.21258762. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abk3316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rahrig H, Vago DR, Passarelli M, Auten A, Lynn NA, Brown KW. Disrupting the resting state: Meta-analytic evidence that mindfulness training alters default mode network connectivity. Res Sq -preprints. 2022; 1–21. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1189676/v1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sezer I, Pizzagalli DA, Sacchet MD. Resting-state fMRI functional connectivity and mindfulness in clinical and non-clinical contexts: A review and synthesis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2022;135: 104583. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chandran V, Bermudez ML, Koka M, Chandran B, Pawale D, Vishnubhotla R, et al. Large-scale genomic study reveals robust activation of the immune system following advanced Inner Engineering meditation retreat. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2110455118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Álvarez-López MJ, Conklin QA, Cosín-Tomás M, Shields GS, King BG, Zanesco AP, et al. Changes in the expression of inflammatory and epigenetic-modulatory genes after an intensive meditation retreat. Compr Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2022;11: 100152. doi: 10.1016/j.cpnec.2022.100152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Conklin QA, King BG, Zanesco AP, Lin J, Hamidi AB, Pokorny JJ, et al. Insight meditation and telomere biology: The effects of intensive retreat and the moderating role of personality. Brain Behav Immun. The Authors; 2018;70: 233–245. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2018.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Conklin QA, Crosswell AD, Saron CD, Epel ES. Meditation, stress processes, and telomere biology. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;28: 92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.11.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chaix R, Fagny M, Cosin-Tomás M, Alvarez-López M, Lemee L, Regnault B, et al. Differential DNA methylation in experienced meditators after an intensive day of mindfulness-based practice: Implications for immune-related pathways. Brain Behav Immun. 2020;84: 36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2019.11.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kaliman P, Álvarez-López MJ, Cosín-Tomás M, Rosenkranz MA, Lutz A, Davidson RJ. Rapid changes in histone deacetylases and inflammatory gene expression in expert meditators. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2014;40: 96–107. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.11.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Goldberg SB, Tucker RP. Allegiance effects in mindfulness-based interventions for psychiatric disorders: A meta-re-analysis. Psychother Res. 2019; 1–10. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2019.1664783 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Davidson RJ, Dahl CJ. Outstanding challenges in scientific research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018;13: 62–65. doi: 10.1177/1745691617718358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Van Dam NT, van Vugt MK, Vago DR, Schmalzl L, Saron CD, Olendzki A, et al. Reiterated concerns and further challenges for mindfulness and meditation research: A reply to Davidson and Dahl. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018;13: 66–69. doi: 10.1177/1745691617727529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Geschwind N, Arntz A, Bannink F, Peeters F. Positive cognitive behavior therapy in the treatment of depression: A randomized order within-subject comparison with traditional cognitive behavior therapy. Behav Res Ther. Elsevier; 2019;116: 119–130. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2019.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Khoury B, Knäuper B, Schlosser M, Carrière K, Chiesa A. Effectiveness of traditional meditation retreats: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. Elsevier Inc.; 2017;92: 16–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kabat-Zinn J. Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delta; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Brito-Pons G, Waibel A, Rosenberg E, Chun JM. Compassion Cultivation Training (CCT): Program description, research, and potential benefit for health care and palliative care professionals. The Power of Compassion. 2019; 133–157. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33: 335–343. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bados A, Solanas A, Andrés R. Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of depression, anxiety and stress scales (DASS). Psicothema. 2005;17: 679–683. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49: 71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Vázquez C, Duque A, Hervás G. Satisfaction with Life Scale in a Representative Sample of Spanish Adults: Validation and Normative Data. Span J Psychol. 2013;16: E82. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2013.82 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Tanay G, Bernstein A. State Mindfulness Scale (SMS): Development and initial validation. Psychol Assess. 2013;25: 1286–1299. doi: 10.1037/a0034044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bados A, Gómez-Benito J, Balaguer G. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Trait Version: Does it really measure anxiety? J Pers Assess. 2010;92: 560–567. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2010.513295 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Spielberg C, Gorsuch R, Lushene R, Jacobs G. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-15: Validity of a new measure for evaluating the severity of somatic symptoms. Psychosom Med. 2002;64: 258–266. doi: 10.1097/00006842-200203000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Diez-Quevedo C, Rangil T, Sanchez-Planell L, Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. Validation and Utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire in Diagnosing Mental Disorders in 1003 General Hospital Spanish Inpatients. Psychosom Med. 2001;63: 679–686. doi: 10.1097/00006842-200107000-00021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), 5th ed. [Internet]. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Neff KD, Tóth-Király I, Knox MC, Kuchar A, Davidson O. The development and validation of the State Self-Compassion Scale (Long- and Short Form). Mindfulness (N Y). 2021;12: 121–140. doi: 10.1007/s12671-020-01505-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Garcia-Campayo J, Navarro-Gil M, Andrés E, Montero-Marin J, López-Artal L, Demarzo MM. Validation of the Spanish versions of the long (26 items) and short (12 items) forms of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12: 4. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Gilbert P, McEwan K, Matos M, Rivis A. Fears of compassion: Development of three self-report measures. Psychol Psychother Theory, Res Pract. 2011;84: 239–255. doi: 10.1348/147608310X526511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Lavender JM, Tull MT, DiLillo D, Messman-Moore T, Gratz KL. Development and validation of a state-based measure of emotion dysregulation. Assessment. 2017;24: 197–209. doi: 10.1177/1073191115601218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hervás G, Jodar R. The Spanish version of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Clínica y Salud. 19: 139–156. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54: 1063–1070. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.López-Gómez I, Hervas G, Vázquez C. Adaptación de la “Escala de afecto positivo y negativo” (PANAS) en una muestra general española. Psicol Conductual. 2015;23: 529–548. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Roca P, Vázquez C, Ondé D. The Hedonic and Arousal Affect Scale (HAAS): A brief adjective checklist to assess affect states. Pers Individ Dif. 2023;207: 112151. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2023.112151 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Britton WB, Lindahl JR, Cooper DJ, Canby NK, Palitsky R. Defining and measuring meditation-related adverse effects in mindfulness-based programs. Clin Psychol Sci. 2021;9: 1185–1204. doi: 10.1177/2167702621996340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Attkisson CC, Zwick R. The client satisfaction questionnaire. Eval Program Plann. 1982;5: 233–237. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(82)90074-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Vázquez FL, Torres Á, Otero P, Blanco V, Clifford Attkisson C. Psychometric Properties of the Castilian Spanish Version of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Curr Psychol. 2019;38: 829–835. doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9659-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Narvaez Linares NF, Charron V, Ouimet AJ, Labelle PR, Plamondon H. A systematic review of the Trier Social Stress Test methodology: Issues in promoting study comparison and replicable research. Neurobiol Stress. 2020;13: 100235. doi: 10.1016/j.ynstr.2020.100235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Watford TS, O’Brien WH, Koerten HR, Bogusch LM, Moeller MT, Sonia Singh R, et al. The mindful attention and awareness scale is associated with lower levels of high‐frequency heart rate variability in a laboratory context. Psychophysiology. 2020;57. doi: 10.1111/psyp.13506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Wielgosz J, Schuyler BS, Lutz A, Davidson RJ. Long-term mindfulness training is associated with reliable differences in resting respiration rate. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 27533. doi: 10.1038/srep27533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Hellhammer DH, Wüst S, Kudielka BM. Salivary cortisol as a biomarker in stress research. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2009;34: 163–171. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.10.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Duran-Ferrer M, Clot G, Nadeu F, Beekman R, Baumann T, Nordlund J, et al. The proliferative history shapes the DNA methylome of B-cell tumors and predicts clinical outcome. Nat Cancer. 2020;1: 1066–1081. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00131-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biol. 2013;14: R115. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-10-r115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Oblak L, van der Zaag J, Higgins-Chen AT, Levine ME, Boks MP. A systematic review of biological, social and environmental factors associated with epigenetic clock acceleration. Ageing Res Rev. 2021;69: 101348. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2021.101348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Mataix-Cols D, Andersson E. Ten practical recommendations for improving blinding integrity and reporting in psychotherapy trials. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78: 943. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1419 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Guidi J, Fava GA. Sequential combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy in major depressive disorder. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78: 261. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.3650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Kaliman P. Epigenetics and meditation. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;28: 76–80. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Van Dam NT, van Vugt MK, Vago DR, Schmalzl L, Saron CD, Olendzki A, et al. Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018;13: 36–61. doi: 10.1177/1745691617709589 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Kaliman P, Cosín-Tomás M, Madrid A, Roque López S, Llanez-Anaya E, Papale LA, et al. Epigenetic impact of a 1-week intensive multimodal group program for adolescents with multiple adverse childhood experiences. Sci Rep. 2022;12: 1–16. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-21246-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.King BG, Conklin QA, Zanesco AP, Saron CD. Residential meditation retreats: their role in contemplative practice and significance for psychological research. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;28: 238–244. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Epel ES, Puterman E, Lin J, Blackburn EH, Lum PY, Beckmann ND, et al. Meditation and vacation effects have an impact on disease-associated molecular phenotypes. Transl Psychiatry. 2016;6: e880. doi: 10.1038/tp.2016.164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Norman A, Pokorny JJ. Meditation retreats: Spiritual tourism well-being interventions. Tour Manag Perspect. 2017;24: 201–207. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2017.07.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Blasche G, DeBloom J, Chang A, Pichlhoefer O. Is a meditation retreat the better vacation? effect of retreats and vacations on fatigue, emotional well-being, and acting with awareness. PLoS One. 2021;16: 1–19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Khoury B, Sharma M, Rush SE, Fournier C. Mindfulness-based stress reduction for healthy individuals: A meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. 2015;78: 519–528. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Galante J, Friedrich C, Dawson AF, Modrego-Alarcón M, Gebbing P, Delgado-Suárez I, et al. Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in adults in nonclinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Medicine. 2021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Galante J, Friedrich C, Aeamla-Or N, Arts-de Jong M, Barrett B, Bögels SM, et al. Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing mindfulness-based programs for mental health promotion. Nat Ment Heal. 2023;1: 462–476. doi: 10.1038/s44220-023-00081-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jan Christopher Cwik

7 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-05455

Epigenetic, psychological, and EEG changes after a 1-week retreat based on mindfulness and compassion for stress reduction: Study protocol of a cross-over randomized controlled trial

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vazquez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jan Christopher Cwik, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This research has been partially funded by a grant from Ministry of Science (PID2019-108711GB-I00) to Carmelo Vazquez, and a Spanish Ministry of Science FPI predoctoral fellowship (PRE2020-092011) to Rosaria M. Zangri.The funders did not and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"CV: Ministry of Science PID2019-108711GB-I00

RMZ:Spanish Ministry of Science FPI predoctoral fellowship (PRE2020-092011)

GD: Mindfulness and Cognitive Science Chair of Complutense University of Madrid.

The funders did not and will not have a role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now  

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have referenced (Jinpa GT. Compassion Cultivation Training (CCT): Instructor’s manual. Stanford, CA: Unpublished manuscript; 2010) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style   

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide

Additional Editor Comments 

I thank all reviewers for their time and effort in reading this manuscript. As you can see from the review below, both reviewers pointed out several mainly methodological aspects that must be considered in revising the manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled ‘Epigenetic, psychological, and EEG changes after a 1-week retreat based on mindfulness and compassion for stress reduction: Study protocol of a cross-over randomized controlled trial’

The manuscript could be improved.

Comments

Page 6, information on how the questionnaires will be administered here, although it was mentioned on Page 11 via Quatrics. Information on allocation concealment is to be mentioned and state blinding is impossible except for blinding for outcome measurement.

Page 7, the information on how the participants are led to the Nirakara-Lab and university’s official website offering the MBS and CCT programs (www.nirakara.org) is to be provided.

Page 8 Line 11, information on no ‘wash-out period’ is required before the subjects switch over to another intervention is to be mentioned.

Page 9 Line 6-8, more information on sample size calculation is to be provided e.g. outcome variable, 1 or 2-tailed test, type of subjects/group involved. The power is to be written as 95%. Why power 95% was chosen? The word ‘alpha standard error probability of’ requires revision.

Page 10 Line 16, information to be provided and if need be, followed by the statement ‘further details can be obtained from Table 2’. Avoid using referring to’ and leave the section empty without describing anything.

Page 11 -12, the proposed questionnaires used in the study are too many and may be taxing to the participant(s). How confident are the authors that the participants will eventually complete all the questionnaires and invite good-quality response or feedback?

Page 15 Line 5, the equivalent statistical test(s) is to be provided if missing data and attrition rates are a concern, as well as when the data is not missing at random (MAR). The effect size and 95% CI are to be indicated where applicable.

Page 15 Line 13, the version and publisher name of the statistical software is to be provided.

Page 16 Line 12-14, the sentence requires revision.

Page 16, Line 16-17, it would be good to state ‘the pattern and percentage of missing data is be explored prior to using the statistical test’. Binary logistic regression assumes data that is MCAR and MAR.

Page 22 Ensure the measures used are similar to the ones mentioned in Page 11-12 and other sections and remove the overlapping measures that capture the same thing.

Ensure the information in SPIRIT checklist are properly addressed and mentioned in the manuscript.

Some references did not conform to the journal format.

Reviewer #2: Summary:

This manuscript describes a study protocol of cross-over randomized controlled trial to study epigenetic, psychological, and EEG changes after a 1-week retreat based on mindfulness and compassion for stress reduction. The protocol is well-written, and the findings will provide unique insights in neurobiological and psychological mechanisms related to meditation and compassion. However, the current protocol has several issues that should be addressed.

Major comments:

1. Timepoints for measurements:

a. Epigenetic changes – There will be very limited-no variations in DNA methylation and gene expression from day 1 to day 4 and day 7. These changes are very slow and thus measuring epigenetic changes within 7 days is not informative. The article cited in line 15 stating that gene expression was modified after 8-day retreat had their measurements taking at 4 time points- 5-8 week before retreat, day of retreat before meditation, after retreat and 3 months after retreat. Similarly for reference 32-36, the study population and time points are different than those in this study. The authors might want to reconsider measuring epigenetic changes at day 1, day 7 and then at 3-month follow-up time to observe meaningful changes, however in doing so, the use of cross-over design may not be appropriate.

b. My thoughts on other outcomes are also similar that there might be very less variation in the measures from day 1 to day 4. The authors should reconsider the timepoints or provide justification using previous literature for the same.

c. If all the outcome measures are to have limited variation, then the cross-over study design may not be important.

d. The authors can consider other outcomes such as blood pressure and heart rate.

2. Sample size:

a. The sample size calculation is done using mean effect size of 0.37 which in the paper cited is for well-being outcomes. The authors need to recalculate the power and sample size using effect size of 0.78 which is for mindfulness outcomes.

b. As the authors are studying multiple outcomes, the sample size requirements will be different for each outcome. The effect size of a mindfulness outcome may not be comparable to other outcomes, and the authors need to consider this in sample size calculation.

3. The study will be conducted in a general population sample of healthy volunteer adults, but the authors do not provide any information about the demographic characteristics. Including such details would clarify the generalizability of the study findings. Also, the importance of conducting this retreat in general population should be justified.

Minor comments:

1. Please provide some information about the validity and reliability of the measures in general population.

2. Please provide a rationale for using a 3-month follow-up period, and why only self-report measures will be used.

3. The authors need to provide a brief summary of expected findings and implications to better understand the potential scientific contributions of this study.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Nov 17;18(11):e0283169. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283169.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Aug 2023

Responses to the reviewers

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled ‘Epigenetic, psychological, and EEG changes after a 1-week retreat based on mindfulness and compassion for stress reduction: Study protocol of a cross-over randomized controlled trial’

The manuscript could be improved.

Comments

Page 6, information on how the questionnaires will be administered here, although it was mentioned on Page 11 via Quatrics. Information on allocation concealment is to be mentioned and state blinding is impossible except for blinding for outcome measurement.

RESPONSE. First of all, thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve the text of this design.

Although we indeed explained on p11 the administration procedure via Qualtrics, we explain now on p6-p7 that the administration of questionnaires will be done online. We now also provide information on allocation concealment.

Page 7, the information on how the participants are led to the Nirakara-Lab and university’s official website offering the MBS and CCT programs (www.nirakara.org) is to be provided.

RESPONSE. We now explain better the characteristics of this website (p. 7), which will be used as a main source of dissemination of the study. However, as we now also say, recruitment will be open to any interested individual who meets the conditions for participation in the study.

Page 8 Line 11, information on no ‘wash-out period’ is required before the subjects switch over to another intervention is to be mentioned.

RESPONSE. We now explicitly mention in the manuscript that there will be no wash-out period in the intervention (p. 8). Although this strategy is common in pharmacological treatments, such a wash-out period is not common in psychological interventions with similar designs (e.g., Geschwind et al., 2019). On the other hand, due to budgetary constraints, we cannot ask participants to return to the retreat site, days, weeks, or months after the first intervention. In addition, this wash-out could also introduce confounders that are difficult to control because they would occur outside the retreat (e.g., life stressors, variations in diet, differences in daily routines, etc.). For all of these reasons, we believe that a wash-out period is not an adequate strategy given the conditions of our study.

Page 9 Line 6-8, more information on sample size calculation is to be provided e.g. outcome variable, 1 or 2-tailed test, type of subjects/group involved. The power is to be written as 95%. Why power 95% was chosen? The word ‘alpha standard error probability of’ requires revision.

RESPONSE. We thank the reviewer for this observation. The use of 95% power is common in studies of interventions in the field of psychology, although the minimum recommended in this field is 80% (https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.28250). Our goal is to reduce the chances of Type II errors and we believe that this is an appropriate choice. We have now improved the description on sample size calculation in the manuscript (p. 9).

Page 10 Line 16, information to be provided and if need be, followed by the statement ‘further details can be obtained from Table 2’. Avoid using referring to’ and leave the section empty without describing anything.

RESPONSE. This line has been removed from the Section and we include a footnote directing the reader to Table 2 for more details of the measurements and the timing of assessment.

Page 11 -12, the proposed questionnaires used in the study are too many and may be taxing to the participant(s). How confident are the authors that the participants will eventually complete all the questionnaires and invite good-quality response or feedback?

RESPONSE. Very similar protocols have been used previously in MBI research (e.g., Roca et al., 2019, 2021) and therefore we have full confidence that participants will complete the information. On the other hand, the total duration of the questionnaires does not exceed 35-40 minutes in total and, in the retreat conditions, completing psychological questionnaires at various times is perfectly adequate and feasible (e.g., Montero et al., 2016, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01935).

Page 15 Line 5, the equivalent statistical test(s) is to be provided if missing data and attrition rates are a concern, as well as when the data is not missing at random (MAR). The effect size and 95% CI are to be indicated where applicable.

RESPONSE. We have added more information on data analysis in the case of data not being missing at random (MNAR). In addition, we also explain that, in the case of questionnaires, the administration via Qualtrics, in which the participant is prevented from continuing if he/she has not answered all the items of a questionnaire, minimizes the possibility of having missing data in those instruments.

Page 15 Line 13, the version and publisher name of the statistical software is to be provided.

RESPONSE. We now provide this complete information

Page 16 Line 12-14, the sentence requires revision.

RESPONSE. Thank you. We have now revised this sentence to clarify the use of two-tailed tests.

Page 16, Line 16-17, it would be good to state ‘the pattern and percentage of missing data is be explored prior to using the statistical test’. Binary logistic regression assumes data that is MCAR and MAR.

RESPONSE. We now add this sentence in the revised text.

Page 22 Ensure the measures used are similar to the ones mentioned in Page 11-12 and other sections and remove the overlapping measures that capture the same thing.

RESPONSE. We have double-checked that there is no overlap between the measurements and all of them are necessary for the study.

Ensure the information in SPIRIT checklist are properly addressed and mentioned in the manuscript.

RESPONSE. We have carefully reviewed the information that we already submitted with the original article, and which we do not know if the reviewer had access to it, so that everything is correctly reflected in the SPIRIT checklist and mentioned in the manuscript.

Some references did not conform to the journal format.

RESPONSE. Thanks for the observation, we have double-checked all the references and hope that everything is correct. In any case, in the original version of the manuscript and in this corrected version we have used the Mendeley plug-in for PlosONE.

Reviewer #2: Summary:

This manuscript describes a study protocol of cross-over randomized controlled trial to study epigenetic, psychological, and EEG changes after a 1-week retreat based on mindfulness and compassion for stress reduction. The protocol is well-written, and the findings will provide unique insights in neurobiological and psychological mechanisms related to meditation and compassion. However, the current protocol has several issues that should be addressed.

Major comments:

1. Timepoints for measurements:

a. Epigenetic changes – There will be very limited-no variations in DNA methylation and gene expression from day 1 to day 4 and day 7. These changes are very slow and thus measuring epigenetic changes within 7 days is not informative. The article cited in line 15 stating that gene expression was modified after 8-day retreat had their measurements taking at 4 time points- 5-8 week before retreat, day of retreat before meditation, after retreat and 3 months after retreat. Similarly for reference 32-36, the study population and time points are different than those in this study. The authors might want to reconsider measuring epigenetic changes at day 1, day 7 and then at 3-month follow-up time to observe meaningful changes, however in doing so, the use of cross-over design may not be appropriate.

RESPONSE. Thank you for the opportunity to review the article and recognize the potential advances that our study may bring to the field of compassion and meditation.

RESPONSE. As we indicated to the first reviewer, this is a study with a very limited budget and while we understand that it would be ideal to include measurements of epigenetic changes with a longer time window, we can only do it during the 7-day retreat. In addition, relevant long-term follow-up measurements of epigenetic and transcriptomic changes might be very challenging, as they may be biased by many external factors difficult to control after the retreat. For instance, high variability in participant lifestyle, including diet, meditation practice routine, or even health problems and infections, may influence epigenetic results, not to mention the difficulties in logistics, as our participants may come from distal places of residence and will be in most cases unable to return to the place of the retreat 3 or 12 months after. However, previous evidence suggests that it is possible to find changes associated with intensive training in a limited period of time (i.e., 3-7 days). In fact, although in the study by Chandran et al. that the reviewer was mentioning (ref 31 of the submitted version) transcriptional changes were investigated in 4-time points, most of the differentially expressed genes were detected immediately after 8-days retreat (44% of differentially expressed genes were exclusive to T3, after retreat). These changes were related mostly to the immune response, immune system, and signaling pathways, which is one of the most consistent changes associated with mind-body interventions observed across different studies (independently of the duration of the intervention). In this context, it should be highlighted that Chandran et al. observed a reversion of most of the genes related to immune-response related in T4, during their 3-month follow-up, which may be due to external factors affecting immediate retreat-related transcriptional effect.

Furthermore, although we agree with the reviewer that the epigenetic changes might accumulate throughout extended periods of time, it is also known that epigenetic alterations might actually be very dynamic upon the activity of different stimuli. Even in an 8-hour intensive mindfulness-based retreat, significant transcriptional (Kaliman et al, ref 36 of the submitted version) as well as DNA methylation changes were observed in blood samples, and affected in genes related to important cellular pathways (such as fatty acid metabolism, DNA repair, and chromatin remodeling, among others)(Chaix et al., ref 35 of the submitted version). Furthermore, differentially methylated CpGs were enriched in binding sites of particular transcription factors, involved in immune response and inflammation (ref 35). These findings suggest that the changes observed are not random, and seem to be induced by the meditation practice, even after only one day of intervention.

Although we do not know a priori whether we will be able to detect highly relevant epigenetic changes in the blood of the participants of our retreat, there is sufficient published evidence to expect some degree of epigenetic modulation after short periods of practice, supporting thus our experimental design.

In any case, we thank the reviewer for this note of caution and include, in the revised version of the manuscript, some additional information in support of the possibility of finding changes in a brief intervention as planned in the present design.

b. My thoughts on other outcomes are also similar that there might be very less variation in the measures from day 1 to day 4. The authors should reconsider the timepoints or provide justification using previous literature for the same.

RESPONSE. Since the retreat is to last one week, which is the most common duration for meditation retreats (Khoury et al., 2017), we must include the measures in that short period of time. However, as the contents of the meditation program are intense (the standard contents of the MBSR and CCT programs are offered in an integral way), we believe that it is possible to find significant effects associated with these intensive interventions. We understand that it is a risk not to find differences in such a short period of time, but it seems to us that it is plausible to find significant differences in the direction indicated in the hypotheses. We now add this clarification in discussing the limitations of the study.

c. If all the outcome measures are to have limited variation, then the cross-over study design may not be important.

RESPONSE. We are not sure that the outcome measures necessarily have limited variation. Perhaps the greatest limitation in variability comes from the fact that participants are drawn from the general population but as explained in the protocol we will exclude candidates with significant medical and psychological conditions, so the sample will be of mostly healthy individuals. In any case, we expect that the cross-over design will allow us, even with all the limitations that the reviewer indicates and that we also indicate in the text, to find differences in the order of application of the interventions. The interest of this type of design is precisely to analyze the impact of the sequence of interventions, apart from their additive effects. In this sense, we believe that the cross-over design continues to be of interest in our study. The question of whether it is more beneficial to begin with mindfulness practice or compassion practice is a pivotal inquiry in the field of meditation-based interventions. Given that our study seeks to determine if there is a benefit in starting with one practice over the other, a cross-over design allows for a direct evaluation of the introduction sequence of the practices and their ensuing effects.

d. The authors can consider other outcomes such as blood pressure and heart rate.

RESPONSE. Thank you very much for this observation. After reading your observation, we have decided to include measures of heart rate and heart rate variability (HRV), and respiratory rate for which our team has accredited experience.

2. Sample size:

a. The sample size calculation is done using mean effect size of 0.37 which in the paper cited is for well-being outcomes. The authors need to recalculate the power and sample size using effect size of 0.78 which is for mindfulness outcomes.

RESPONSE. Thank you for this interesting observation. We explicitly decided to use the effect size of well-being measures for two reasons. First, we are comparing mindfulness training (MBSR) and compassion training (CCT); we believed that using the mindfulness effect size, in this comparison, would be a biased choice toward one of the interventions (i.e., MBSR). On the other hand, we have healthy participants for our study, and it seems more appropriate to use measures that capitalize on aspects of psychological well-being rather than on clinical measures. Of note, the choice of this effect size implies having a larger sample of participants, all other conditions being equal.

b. As the authors are studying multiple outcomes, the sample size requirements will be different for each outcome. The effect size of a mindfulness outcome may not be comparable to other outcomes, and the authors need to consider this in sample size calculation.

RESPONSE. We agree with this comment. It is true that in a complex design with multiple measures, there is no single indication of the effect size required for each measure. However, we have used a very conservative strategy since our sample size calculations are based on studies with psychological measures. These studies have much larger sample requirements than studies in neuroscience (Marek et al. (2002). Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04492-9; Szucs & Ioannidis (2020), Neuroimage, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117164). This decision may imply that biological measures may be overpowered in terms of sample size, but it is also possible that in these measures there may be more missing data due to difficulties in recording. In any case, we will take this important observation into account in the conclusions we draw from the data in all future analyses.

3. The study will be conducted in a general population sample of healthy volunteer adults, but the authors do not provide any information about the demographic characteristics. Including such details would clarify the generalizability of the study findings. Also, the importance of conducting this retreat in the general population should be justified.

RESPONSE. Demographic data will be provided at the end of the study. Our plan is, as we now make it clear in the manuscript, that the composition of men and women in each of the two groups in the design will be equal, so randomization will take this matching factor into account. We now also add some additional information on the demographic variables that we will collect in the study.

Given the increasing popularity of mindfulness and compassion practices and research in the general population, it is crucial to understand their effects on individuals who do not necessarily have clinical problems but seek personal growth, stress reduction, or well-being enhancement. We have made significant efforts in reinforcing our exclusion criteria to ensure we select only a healthy population. This rigorous approach ensures the integrity of our findings, free from potential confounders related to health conditions. Our intention is to assess the impact of these retreats on a healthy population, aiming to provide tools that enhance well-being and contribute to the prevention of mental health issues. By understanding the effects on a healthy cohort, we can offer evidence-based guidance on how these practices can serve as preventative measures for the broader community, potentially reducing the onset of mental health conditions. We now include these reflections in the Discussion section.

Minor comments:

1. Please provide some information about the validity and reliability of the measures in general population.

RESPONSE. As we mention now in the manuscript, the criterion for the selection of measures for the design of this study was precisely to use measures that have been commonly used in the general population. They are not clinical measures and have had a very common use in meditation studies. In fact, we indicate a general reference to a study (Roca et al., 2022) that has used a very similar set of measures. The measures are well-known in the psychological literature and are perhaps the most standard self-report tools for assessing the psychological constructs we wish to measure (positive and negative emotions, life satisfaction, mindfulness, compassion, etc.). Including data on each and every measure in terms of reliability and validity, which are common measures in psychological research, maybe too much information for a schematic paper focused on design. However, if the reviewer deems it necessary to include this detailed information, we can include reliability and validity indices for each measure.

2. Please provide a rationale for using a 3-month follow-up period, and why only self-report measures will be used.

RESPONSE. Thank you for this comment. After having read it, we believe it is more appropriate to extend the follow-up and also to make an evaluation 1 year after the intervention, which we now include in the protocol. This follow-up, at 3 months and 12 months, will be done only with self-report measures due to logistical and budget constraints. Biological testing requires setting up laboratories for blood analysis, psychophysiological measures, etc. All of this would require participants to return again to the laboratories from their places of residence. While that would be ideal, it is beyond the limited resources we have for this research.

3. The authors need to provide a brief summary of expected findings and implications to better understand the potential scientific contributions of this study.

RESPONSE. We now include that brief summary of expected findings and implications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter - FINAL.docx

Decision Letter 1

Jan Christopher Cwik

25 Oct 2023

Epigenetic, psychological, and EEG changes after a 1-week retreat based on mindfulness and compassion for stress reduction in healthy adults: Study protocol of a cross-over randomized controlled trial

PONE-D-23-05455R1

Dear Dr. Vazquez,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jan Christopher Cwik, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have put in great effort to address the comments and revised the manuscript.

I have no further comments.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the concerns in their responses and made necessary changes in the revised manuscript to improve the content.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Jan Christopher Cwik

7 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-05455R1

Epigenetic, psychological, and EEG changes after a 1-week retreat based on mindfulness and compassion for stress reduction in healthy adults: Study protocol of a cross-over randomized controlled trial

Dear Dr. Vázquez:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jan Christopher Cwik

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter - FINAL.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion. This paper only reports a research protocol but we include now an OSF link with all the the questionnaires of the protocol and the Inforemed consent.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES