Table 4.

Acceptability before, during, and after the interventions.

Author(s) and country		Acceptability before	Acceptability during	Acceptability after	Attrition
Guided
	Forsell et al [49], Sweden	N/Aa	Treatment Credibility Scale of the Credibility/Expectancy questionnaire: good treatment credibility	Client Satisfaction Questionnaire 8: good satisfaction level; treatment adherence and utilization described	4.5%
	Guo et al [50], China	N/A	N/A	Brief dropout reasons provided; attendance rate=91.8%	N/A
Unguided
	Barrera et al [47], United States	N/A	N/A	3 open-ended questions: intervention helpfulness and usefulness rated favorably; content easy to understand	N/A
	Duffecy et al [48], United States	Intervention development process involved target participants; topics, site motif (visual themes and look and feel of the internet site), and usability of potential application	Use of interactive features assessed	Usability, satisfaction, and ease of use: intervention usefulness, ease of use, ease of learning, satisfaction rated favorably	38.9%
	Haga et al [51], Norway	Intervention development process published in Drozd et al [64]	Dropout reasons not described in paper; other acceptability and feasibility details in paper [65]	More than half completed >80% of intervention; other acceptability and feasibility details in the paper [51]	22.1%
	Loughnan et al [52], Australia	N/A	Detailed dropout reasons provided; intervention content evaluated during each session	Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire: high satisfaction; Credibility and Expectancy Questionnaire: intervention quality rated as excellent; Intervention utilization and implementation data provided	46.5%
	Sun et al [53], China	N/A	Logs of practice on formal mindfulness training	Completion rates for all 8 sessions=8.3%; completion rates for 4 sessions=52.4%	25%

^aN/A: not available.