Summary of findings 2. 'Summary of findings' table 2.

Group therapy (mindfulness) compared to control for improving psychological well‐being in adults living with HIV
Patient or population: adults living with HIV Settings: any setting Intervention: group therapy based on mindfulness
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)		Number of participants (trials)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Group therapy (Mindfulness)
Depression score Follow‐up: 4 to 6 months	The mean scores in the control groups at the end of follow‐up were in the range of normal to mild depression	The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.23 standard deviations (SDs) lower (0.49 lower to 0.03 higher)	233 (3 trials)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4 due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision	We don't know if there is a benefit on depression scores
Anxiety score Follow‐up: 4 to 6 months	The mean scores in the control group at the end of follow‐up were in the range of normal to mild anxiety	The mean score in the intervention groups was 0.16 SDs lower (0.47 lower to 0.15 higher)	162 (2 trials)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3,4 due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision	We don't know if there is an effect on mean anxiety scores
Stress score Follow‐up: 4 to 6 months	The mean scores in the control group at the end of follow‐up were in the range of mild stress	The mean score in the intervention groups was 2.02 points lower (4.23 lower to 0.19 higher)	137 (2 trials)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3,4 due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision	We don't know if there is an effect on mean stress scores
Coping score Follow‐up: no coping was measured by mindfulness intervention trials	—	—	0 (0 trials)	—	—
Studies used a variety of different scales to measure depression, anxiety and stress. Consequently, trials were pooled using a standardized mean difference. Examples of how large this effect would be on standardized measurement scales are given in the review main text and abstract. Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; SD: standard deviation.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate certainty: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low certainty: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low certainty: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

¹Downgraded by 1 for serious risk of bias: none of the trials adequately described a method of allocation concealment, and so trials are at unclear or high risk of selection bias. Loss of follow‐up was generally more than 20% and attrition bias may be present.
 ²No serious inconsistency: statistical heterogeneity between trials was low.
 ³Downgraded by 1 for serious indirectness: these three trials were conducted in the USA and Canada in people with scores in the range of mild to moderate depression. The results are not easily generalized to other settings or populations.
 ⁴Downgraded by 1 for serious imprecision: the 95% CI are wide and includes both potentially important effects and no effect.