PURPOSE Positive effects have been reported after mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in diverse clinical and nonclinical populations. Primary care is a key health care setting for addressing common chronic conditions, and an effective MBI designed for this setting could benefit countless people worldwide. Meta-analyses of MBIs have become popular, but little is known about their efficacy in primary care. Our aim was to investigate the application and efficacy of MBIs that address primary care patients. METHODS We performed a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials addressing the effect of MBIs in adult patients recruited from primary care settings. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. Effect sizes were calculated with the Hedges g in random effects models. RESULTS The meta-analyses were based on 6 trials having a total of 553 patients. The overall effect size of MBI compared with a control condition for improving general health was moderate (g = 0.48; P = .002), with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 59; P <.05). We found no indication of publication bias in the overall estimates. MBIs were efficacious for improving mental health (g = 0.56; P = .007), with a high heterogeneity (I² = 78; P <.01), and for improving quality of life (g = 0.29; P = .002), with a low heterogeneity (I² = 0; P >.05). CONCLUSIONS Although the number of randomized controlled trials applying MBIs in primary care is still limited, our results suggest that these interventions are promising for the mental health and quality of life of primary care patients. We discuss innovative approaches for implementing MBIs, such as complex intervention and stepped care.

To what extent meditation techniques (which incorporate practices to regulate attention, construct individual values, or deconstruct self-related assumptions), are more or less effective than relaxation therapy in the treatment of anxiety, is not clear. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of meditation compared to relaxation in reducing anxiety. A systematic review from PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and the Cochrane Central was conducted. A meta-analysis of 14 RCTs (n = 862 participants suffering from anxiety disorders or high trait anxiety) was performed. Effect sizes (ESs) were determined by Hedges’ g. Heterogeneity, risk of publication bias, quality of studies/interventions, and researcher allegiance, were evaluated. Meditation techniques incorporated attentional elements, and five of them also added constructive practices. No studies were found using deconstructive exercises. The overall ES was g = −0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.40 to −0.07], favouring meditation (number needed to treat = 7.74). Heterogeneity was low (I² = 2; 95% CI 0 to 56). There was no evidence of publication bias, but few studies and interventions were of high quality, and allegiance might be moderating results. Meditation seems to be a bit more effective than relaxation in the treatment of anxiety, and it might also remain more effective at 12-month follow-up. However, more research using the full spectrum of meditation practices to treat different anxiety disorders, including independent studies to avoid researcher allegiance, is needed if we are to have a precise idea of the potential of these techniques compared to relaxation therapy.