| Literature DB >> 35127272 |
Eric B Loucks1,2,3, Rebecca S Crane4, Menka A Sanghvi5, Jesús Montero-Marin6,7, Jeffrey Proulx2,3, Judson A Brewer2,3, Willem Kuyken6,7.
Abstract
This paper provides a framework for understanding why, when and how to adapt mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) to specific populations and contexts, based on research that developed and adapted multiple MBPs. In doing so, we hope to support teachers, researchers and innovators who are considering adapting an MBP to ensure that changes made are necessary, acceptable, effective, cost-effective, and implementable. Specific questions for reflection are provided such as (1) Why is an adaptation needed? (2) Does the theoretical premise underpinning mainstream MBPs extend to the population you are considering? (3) Do the benefits of the proposed adaptation outweigh the time and costs involved to all in research and implementation? (4) Is there already an evidenced-based approach to address this issue in the population or context? Fundamental knowledge that is important for the adaptation team to have includes the following: (1) essential ingredients of MBPs, (2) etiology of the target health outcome, (3) existing interventions that work for the health outcome, population, and context, (4) delivery systems and settings, and (5) culture, values, and communication patterns of the target population. A series of steps to follow for adaptations is provided, as are case examples. Adapting MBPs happens not only by researchers, but also by MBP teachers and developers, who endeavor to best serve the populations and contexts they work within. We hope that these recommendations for best practice provide a practical framework for skilfully understanding why, when, and how to adapt MBPs; and that this careful approach to adaptation maximizes MBP safety and efficacy.Entities:
Keywords: dissemination; implementation; mindfulness; study design
Year: 2022 PMID: 35127272 PMCID: PMC8811951 DOI: 10.1177/21649561211068805
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Glob Adv Health Med ISSN: 2164-9561
Established Models for Behavioral Intervention Development.
| Model | Description |
|---|---|
| NIH Stage Model[ | • Strong emphasis on carrying behavioral clinical trials through all clinical trial stages, including basic research for intervention development, research on mechanisms, efficacy and effectiveness testing, as well as implementation and dissemination research in the actual communities and settings the intervention ends up serving |
| Science of Behavior Change (SOBC)
| • Focuses on identifying mechanisms of behavior change first as an early indicator of effect, and as a potential target to customize interventions to engage with |
| • Emphasizes evaluating the degree to which changes in the mechanisms translate into meaningful behavior change | |
| • Can foster creating efficient interventions customized to target the mechanisms of behavior change, while cleaving out superfluous intervention content that does not impact health | |
| ORBIT Model
| • Incorporates basic behavioral and social science insights into a four-stage model of sequential intervention development and testing from phase I (intervention design) to phase IV (intervention effectiveness) testing |
| MRC Guidelines on Complex
Intervention Development
| • Provides a framework for complex behavioral intervention development |
| Theory of Change (ToC)
| • Interventions developed in collaboration with a wide variety of stakeholders |
| • Encompasses strategic considerations such as including beneficiaries, actors in the context, sphere of influence, research evidence supporting the ToC, timelines, and indicators | |
| • Emphasizes developing the theory by which the intervention is expected to change clinically relevant outcomes. By deeply understanding and developing the theory through recursive feedback from key stakeholders and scientific findings, it argues that more efficient and effective interventions can be developed | |
| Community-Based Participatory
Research (CBPR)
| • Focuses on active involvement of community members, organizational representatives, and researchers in the entire research process |
| • Several key principles, identified by Israel et al., 52 are | |
| A. Recognizes community as a unit of identity | |
| B. Builds on strengths and resources within the community | |
| C. Facilitates collaborative partnerships in all phases of the research | |
| D. Integrates knowledge and action for mutual benefit of all partners | |
| E. Promotes a co-learning and empowering process that attends to social inequalities | |
| F. Involves a cyclical and iterative process | |
| G. Addresses health from both positive and ecological perspectives | |
| H. Disseminates findings and knowledge gained to all partners | |
| Multiphasic Optimization Strategy (MOST)
| • Uses a three-phase design to identify the active and inactive components of interventions in order to make them efficient and effective. The phases are |
Description of Essential (Warp) and Flexible (Weft) Ingredients of MBPs and MBP Teachers Adapted From Crane et al.
| Warp: Essential ingredients | |
|---|---|
| MBP | MBP teacher |
| 1. Is informed by theories and practices that draw from a confluence of contemplative traditions, science, and the major disciplines of medicine, psychology and education | 1. Has particular competencies which enable the effective delivery of the MBP. |
| 2. Is underpinned by a model of human experience which addresses the causes of human distress and the pathways to relieving it | 2. Has the capacity to embody the qualities and attitudes of mindfulness within the process of the teaching |
| 3. Develops a new relationship with experience, characterized by present moment focus, decentering and an approach orientation (i.e., moving towards experience—whether pleasurable, neutral or difficult—instead of away) | 3. Has engaged in appropriate training and commits to ongoing good practice |
| 4. Engages the participant in a sustained intensive training in mindfulness meditation practice, in an experiential inquiry-based learning process and in exercises to develop insight and understanding | 4. Is part of a participatory learning process with their students, clients or patients |
| Weft: Flexible ingredients | |
|
|
|
| 1. The core essential curriculum elements are integrated with adapted curriculum elements, and tailored to specific contexts and populations | 1. Has knowledge, experience and professional training related to the specialist populations that the mindfulness-based course will be delivered to |
| 2. Variations in program structure, length and delivery are formatted to fit the population and context | 2. Has knowledge of relevant underlying theoretical processes which underpin the teaching for particular contexts or populations |
Five Questions for Reflection in Considering Whether or Not to Adapt an MBP.
| Question | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Why is an adaptation needed? Does a current MBP not meet the population being served? For example, is the adaptation minor (i.e., within the remit of the teacher’s ability to dial up/down certain features of an extant MBP for the population/ context) or is the necessary adaptation more major, and so requires the MBP curriculum and/or teaching process itself to be adapted? | • MBSR teachers offer MBSR in numerous settings
and populations. An extensive evidence-base attests to
MBSR’s acceptability and effectiveness
|
| • Case example 1 of teaching MBSR in a hospice
setting illustrates these questions of flex or adaptation.
There is a substantial evidence-base showing MBSR reduces
stress and improves mental health.
| |
| A. Ensuring the class only includes those who were grieving, to create a safe environment where everyone had a shared history | |
| B. During the teaching on stress physiology, include more on the neurobiology of loss and grief | |
| C. Adapt some of the poetry to relate more specifically to grief and impermanence | |
| D. Offer flexibility with the length of meditation practices | |
| E. Ensure the program is led by a grief counselor within the hospice setting to meet any clinical needs of participants as they arise | |
| F. Emphasize self-compassion throughout | |
| • By staying true to MBSR form but making minor shifts to the curriculum, teaching process, and teacher experience, Alejandro felt confident he could draw on MBSR evidence and practice while ensuring it skilfully met this population | |
| 2. Does the theoretical premise underpinning mainstream MBPs extend to the population you are considering? If not, what theoretical adaptation is needed? | • MBPs share a theoretical formulation based in
ancient wisdom and modern psychology that provides a map of
the foundational skills that any MBP curriculum addresses:
attention, perspective and self-regulation.
|
| 3. Does the existing MBP curriculum extend to the population and context you are considering? If not, what adaptation (weft) is needed? | • Beyond theory, it is also important to consider both the MBP curriculum and how it is delivered. For example, many settings do not provide two-hour time windows for classes (e.g., schools), so different formats are needed |
| • Adaptations may be required to increase MBPs’
reach. For example, when Dr. Brewer, an addictions
psychiatrist and mindfulness researcher was leaving work one
day, he saw a group of people in the parking lot smoking and
looking at their smart phones. Dr. Brewer thought, “If I
could bring mindfulness training to them through their
smartphones, it could serve so many more people.” He
developed an app-delivered MBP for smoking cessation, named
Craving to Quit. While much of the learning is asynchronous
via a smartphone app, trained MBP teachers are also
available to provide live, synchronous mindfulness practices
followed by inquiry-based learning for participants to give
feedback and guidance on their learning and development.
Preliminary and RCT evidence suggests it is acceptable and effective
| |
| • There are many examples where adaptations are
necessary to make the curriculum accessible and maximally
potent. A UK review of MBPs in healthcare, workplaces,
prisons and educational settings provided exemplars, as well
as recommendations for research and implementation
| |
| 4. Do the benefits of an adaptation outweigh the time and costs involved to all in research and implementation? Is the adaptation likely to be sustainable and create long-term value? | • The work on CBT over 50 years is an
instructive model. When Beck started this work on CBT for
depression there were few evidence-based approaches to
depression, let alone other common mental health problems.
The case for accessible, evidence-based, scalable
psychological treatments was easy to make. Beck and
colleagues developed CBT adaptions for anxiety disorder,
substance abuse disorders, personality disorders, eating
disorders and psychosis.
|
| • MBPs have gone through their own
developmental process. Kabat-Zinn’s original formulation of
MBSR was based on a universal model of the mind and body for
heterogeneous groups.
| |
| • But in contrast to CBT, the question of
bespoke adaptations came second, with MBCT for recurrent
depression perhaps being the most extensively researched
| |
| 5. Is there already a good approach for this issue in the population/ context? | • When MBSR was first developed it clearly met
a particular need, filling a particular and important
niche—helping people in healthcare settings learn to manage
and live with long-term health conditions.
|
Figure 1.Fundamental knowledge domains required in the developmental team in order to develop an effective MBP adapted to specific populations or contexts.