Table 3.

Differential responsiveness of mindfulness and clinical outcomes, by condition

						Meta-analysis				Sensitivity analysis
Time Period	Outcome Type	Condition	N	k	ES	95% CI	I2	Q	p	kimp	ESadj	95% CI
Pre-post	Mindfulness	Mindfulness	2083	50	-0.11	[−0.22,−0.01]	79.88	248.53	< .001	0
	Mindfulness	Waitlist	997	29	−0.18a	[−0.25,−0.10]	39.98	45.62	.019	0
	Mindfulness	Bona fide	1439	29	−0.30a	[−0.43,−0.16]	82.16	127.83	< .001	0
Pre-FU	Mindfulness	Mindfulness	764	16	-0.35	[−0.58, 0.11]	90.20	111.79	< .001	0
	Mindfulness	Waitlist	301	8	−0.32b	[−0.65,0.01]	88.31	27.83	<.001	0
	Mindfulness	Bona fide	633	12	−0.47b	[0.03, 0.27]	95.84	117.09	<.001	0

Note: ES = effect size (Δ ☐☐☐) quantifies degree to which responsiveness of mindfulness measures exceeds that for clinical outcome measures for the specified experimental condition (computed as g^mindfulness-g^clinical); 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= no significant difference between comparison group effect sizes (Q[1] = 1.57, p = .210);

^b= no significant difference between comparison group effect sizes (Q[1] = 0.22, p = .640). Type of mindfulness measure (FFMQ/KIMS, MAAS, or other) was tested as a moderator of differential responsiveness. There was no evidence for moderation by the measure of mindfulness used (ps > .050).