Introduction: This is an overall review on mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs). Sources of data: We identified studies in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, Web of Science and Google Scholar using keywords including ‘mindfulness’, ‘meditation’, and ‘review’, ‘meta-analysis’ or their variations. Areas of agreement: MBIs are effective for improving many biopsychosocial conditions, including depression, anxiety, stress, insomnia, addiction, psychosis, pain, hypertension, weight control, cancer-related symptoms and prosocial behaviours. It is found to be beneficial in the healthcare settings, in schools and workplace but further research is warranted to look into its efficacy on different problems. MBIs are relatively safe, but ethical aspects should be considered. Mechanisms are suggested in both empirical and neurophysiological findings. Cost-effectiveness is found in treating some health conditions. Areas of controversy: Inconclusive or only preliminary evidence on the effects of MBIs on PTSD, ADHD, ASD, eating disorders, loneliness and physical symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and respiratory conditions. Furthermore, some beneficial effects are not confirmed in subgroup populations. Cost-effectiveness is yet to confirm for many health conditions and populations. Growing points: Many mindfulness systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate low quality of included studies, hence high-quality studies with adequate sample size and longer follow-up period are needed. Areas timely for developing research: More research is needed on online mindfulness trainings and interventions to improve biopsychosocial health during the COVID-19 pandemic; Deeper understanding of the mechanisms of MBIs integrating both empirical and neurophysiological findings; Long-term compliance and effects of MBIs; and development of mindfulness plus (mindfulness+) or personalized mindfulness programs to elevate the effectiveness for different purposes.

Background: Nonadherence to antihypertensive medications is the leading cause of poor blood pressure control and thereby cardiovascular diseases and mortality worldwide. Methods and Results: We investigated the global epidemiology, regional differences, and trend of antihypertensive medication nonadherence via a systematic review and meta‐analyses of data from 2010 to 2020. Multiple medical databases and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for articles. Observational studies reporting the proportion of patients with anti‐hypertensive medication nonadherence were included. The proportion of nonadherence, publication year, year of first recruitment, country, and health outcomes attributable to antihypertensive medication nonadherence were extracted. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts, classified countries according to levels of income and locations, and extracted data. The Joanna Briggs Institute prevalence critical appraisal tool was used to rate the included studies. Prevalence meta‐analyses were conducted using a fixed‐effects model, and trends in prevalence were analyzed using meta‐regression. The certainty of evidence concerning the effect of health consequences of nonadherence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. A total of 161 studies were included. Subject to different detection methods, the global prevalence of anti‐hypertensive medication nonadherence was 27% to 40%. Nonadherence was more prevalent in low‐ to middle‐income countries than in high‐income countries, and in non‐Western countries than in Western countries. No significant trend in prevalence was detected between 2010 and 2020. Patients with antihypertensive medication nonadherence had suboptimal blood pressure control, complications from hypertension, all‐cause hospitalization, and all‐cause mortality. Conclusions: While high prevalence of anti‐hypertensive medication nonadherence was detected worldwide, higher prevalence was detected in low‐ to middle‐income and non‐Western countries. Interventions are urgently required, especially in these regions. Current evidence is limited by high heterogeneity. Registration: URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ; Unique identifier: CRD42021259860.

Background: Emotional eating (EE), defined as eating in response to a range of emotions, has been previously associated with poor diet and obesity. Since there are limited data from non-Western populations, this study aims to examine the prevalence and factors associated with EE among urban Chinese university students. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 424 university students (aged 18–24 years) from two large universities in Hong Kong in 2019. Respondents completed an anonymous online questionnaire that contained background questions, an emotional eating subscale of the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), and Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21). Two-sample independent t-test and multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the association of study variables with negative emotional eating. Results: There was over a three-fold higher likelihood of negative EE among females (14.8%) when compared with their male counterparts (4.5%) (OR = 3.7, p < 0.05). Having at least mild depressive symptoms was the only independent factor associated with negative EE among males (OR = 10.1) while for females, negative EE was independently associated with not having a romantic partner (OR = 3.45), having depressive symptoms (OR = 44.5), and having at least mild stress (OR = 5.65). Anxiety levels were not independently associated with negative EE for either gender. Both male and female students with negative EE had significantly lower self-perceived health scores, higher body mass index, and lower life satisfaction scores. Conclusions: This study revealed that negative EE is prevalent among female Chinese university students and not uncommon among male students. Management of negative EE should be included as a component of university mental health promotion programmes in the region.

The mindfulness-based stress reduction program (MBSR) may reduce blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension or elevated BP. However, some important parameters (such as asleep BP) have not been investigated in previous reviews, and a well-conducted meta-analysis is lacking. This meta-analysis investigates the effect and acceptability of MBSR on patients with elevated BP or hypertension. Relevant articles were searched in multiple databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and APA PsycInfo. Included studies were randomized controlled trials that involved patients with an elevated BP, had a control group, and investigated the effect of MBSR. The mean office and out-of-office (including 24-hour, daytime, and asleep) systolic BP and diastolic BP, psychological outcomes (depression/anxiety/stress), and dropout rate were compared between the MBSR arm and the control arm using a random-effects model. Quality assessment was conducted based on the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Twelve studies were included, and only one was considered having low risk of bias. MBSR decreased the office systolic BP and diastolic BP by 6.64 and 2.47 mm Hg at postintervention, respectively; the reduction in diastolic BP was sustained until 3 to 6 months after the recruitment. Our meta-analyses did not find a significant reduction in out-of-office BP after MBSR. MBSR reduced depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms. The dropout rate from MBSR arm was 15% and was similar to that of control arm. The current evidence is limited by lack of high-quality and adequately powered trials with long-term follow-up. Furthermore, out-of-office BP was only reported by few trials.