Bowen 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Substance: various substances Baseline characteristics Mindfulness‐based intervention Number randomized: 103 Control 1 Number randomized: 88 Control 2 Number randomized: 95 Overall Number randomized: 286 Included criteria: 18+, English fluency, medical clearance, ability to attend sessions, agreement to random assignment and follow‐up assessment, completion of initial intensive outpatient or inpatient care Excluded criteria: current psychotic disorder, dementia, suicidality, imminent danger to others, or participation in previous MBRP trials. Number missing: 53 Reason missing: withdrew from study, enrolled as inpatient, incarcerated, refused, unable to contact, died Baseline differences: TAU reported lower severity on SDS Age: 38.4 Percent female: 29.7 Race/Ethnicity: 64% white, 24% black, 12% Hispanic
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Mindfulness‐based intervention Group name: MBRP Theory: Mindfulness‐based relapse prevention (Bowen et al., 2010) Duration: 8 weeks Timing: 1x week for 2 hours. Delivery: group Providers: doctoral degree in clinical psychology, also treatment developer, meditation practice and retreat experience, CBT and group experience, 2‐day intensive Co‐intervention: none Integrity: weekly supervision, review of sessions, competence and adherence scales Compliance: not reported Control 1 Group name: Relapse Prevention Theory: Relapse Prevention (Daley & Marlatt, 2006) Duration: 8 weeks Timing: 1x week for 2 hours. Delivery: group Providers: doctoral degrees in clinical psychology or in training, experience with CBT and group, 2‐day intensive, ongoing training and weekly supervision Co‐intervention: none Integrity: weekly supervision, review of sessions, competence and adherence scales Compliance: not reported Control 2 Group name: TAU Theory: Based on Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous 12‐step program Duration: unclear Timing: 1 to 2 xs per week for 1.5 hours. Delivery: group Providers: licensed chemical dependency counsellors with varying professional degrees and outpatient aftercare experience Co‐intervention: none Integrity: not reported Compliance: not reported
Outcomes	Any drug use Outcome type: dichotomous outcome Reporting: fully reported Direction: lower is better Data value: endpoint Time point: post‐treatment, 1‐ and 4‐, and 10‐month follow‐up Any heavy drinking Outcome type: dichotomous outcome Reporting: fully reported Direction: lower is better Data value: endpoint Time point: post‐treatment, 1‐ and 4‐, and 10‐month follow‐up Drug use days Outcome type: continuous outcome Reporting: fully reported Direction: lower is better Data value: endpoint Time point: post‐treatment, 1‐ and 4‐, and 10‐month follow‐up Heavy drinking days Outcome type: continuous outcome Reporting: fully reported Direction: lower is better Data value: endpoint Time point: post‐treatment, 1‐ and 4‐, and 10‐month follow‐up Penn Alcohol Craving Scale Outcome type: continuous outcome Reporting: partially reported Direction: lower is better Data value: endpoint Time point: post‐treatment, 1‐ and 4‐, and 10‐month follow‐up Treatment acceptability (attrition) Outcome type: dichotomous outcome Reporting: fully reported Direction: lower is better Data value: endpoint Time point: post‐treatment
Identification	Sponsorship source: NIDA, NIAAA, Recovery Centers of King County Country: USA Setting: residential Comments: Authors name: Sarah Bowen Institution: University of Washington Email: swbowen @uw.edu Address: Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors, University of Washington, 1100 NE 45th St, Ste 300, Seattle, WA 98105 COI: Drs Bowen, Grow, and Chawla conduct MBRP training for which they receive monetary incentives, although the findings presented in this article have not yet been presented as part of these trainings. No other disclosures were reported. Diagnosis tool: received inpatient alcohol use disorder treatment Diagnosis type: informat Funding: NIDA, NIAAA, Recovery Centers of King County Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Publication type: published report Secondary Publications: Carroll et al. (2017); Roos et al. (2019); Roos et al. (2017); Greenfield et al. (2018); Hsiao et al. (2018)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Judgement comment: no blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Treatment acceptability (attrition)	Low risk	Objective measure
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All non‐attrition outcomes	High risk	Self‐report
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Judgement comment: missing outcome data roughly balanced with similar reasons for attrition, used maximum likelihood estimation
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Judgement comment: protocol available and reported primary outcome
Other bias: equivalence of baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Judgement comment: differences on some measures at baseline but controlled in analyses