Table 2.

Relative responsiveness (mindfulness versus comparison conditions), by outcome type

						Meta-analysis				Sensitivity analysis
Time Period	Outcome Type	Comparison	N	k	ES	95% CI	I2	Q	p	kimp	ESadj	95% CI
Pre-post	Mindfulness	Waitlist	1415	25	0.52a	[0.40, 0.64]	17.45	30.40	.172	6	0.45	[0.33, 0.57]
	Mindfulness	Bona fide	2863	30	−0.25a	[0.11, 0.38]	59.85	84.59	<.001	0	−0.003
Pre-FU	Mindfulness	Waitlist	234	5	0.52b	[0.20, 0.84]	21.65	5.44	.245	2	0.35	[−0.33, 0.72]
	Mindfulness	Bona fide	1430	13	0.10b	[−0.08, 0.28]	58.54	28.40	.005	5	−0.09	[−0.30, 0.12]
Pre-post	Clinical Outcomes	Waitlist	1415	25	0.37c	[0.25, 0.50]	36.34	41.43	.015	4	0.31	[0.16, 0.45]
	Clinical Outcomes	Bona fide	2863	30	0.16c	[0.07, 0.24]	18.67	63.68	< .001	1	0.17	[0.08, 0.26]
Pre-FU	Clinical Outcomes	Waitlist	296	6	0.27d	[−0.14, 0.67]	70.34	16.87	.005	0
	Clinical Outcomes	Bona fide	2020	0.18d	0.18d	[0.06, 0.30]	42.71	31.83	.023	0

Note: The combined sample size (n = 4,278 from pre- to post, ) is smaller than the total unique sample size (n = 4,743) due to some studies including multiple comparison group types. When multiple comparison conditions were used, the less rigorous comparison condition (i.e., waitlist) was excluded in between-group analyses. ES = effect size (Δ quantifies degree to which responsiveness in the mindfulness condition exceeds that in the comparison condition); FU = follow-up; CI = confidence interval; I² = heterogeneity; Q = Q-statistic assessing degree of heterogeneity; p = p-value for Q-statistic; k_imp = number of studies imputed using trim-and-fill analyses to account for funnel plot asymmetry; ES_adj = trim-and-fill adjusted effect size;

^a= significant difference between comparison group effect sizes (Q[1] = 9.08, p = .003);

^b= significant difference between comparison group effect sizes (Q[1] = 4.86, p = .028);

^c= significant difference between comparison group effect sizes (Q[1] = 8.27, p = .004);

^d= no significant difference between comparison group effect sizes (Q[1] = 0.02, p = .875).