Differential impact of mindfulness practices on aggression among law enforcement officers

Psychometric properties of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire-short form among law enforcement officers

Repeatedly capturing national headlines, excessive law enforcement officer (LEO) use of force in critical incident encounters is one of the most divisive human rights issues in the United States. Valid and reliable measures of potential precursors to LEO excessive use of force, such as aggression, are needed. The Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire-short form (BPAQ-SF) is a validated measure of aggression across various populations; however, evaluation of this easily administered measure in high-stress, frontline populations such as LEOs is limited. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change the BPAQ-SF in a sample of LEOs. A confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the hierarchical solution provides a mixed fit to the data: SBχ²(25.84)  = 62.50, p = .0001; comparative fit index = .94, non-normed fit index = .92, root mean square error of approximation = .19 (90% confidence interval = .17-.21), standardized root mean squared residual = .08. The BPAQ-SF demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .84) and test-retest reliability (r = .86), correlations in the expected direction with predictors of and buffers against aggression, and sensitivity to change among LEOs who participated in an intervention targeting aggression. Results support and extend previous findings suggesting that the BPAQ-SF is a valid and reliable measure of aggression among LEOs.

Individual participant data systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing adult mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in non-clinical settings

Introduction

Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are widely used to prevent mental ill-health that is becoming the leading global cause of morbidity. Evidence suggests beneficial average effects but wide variability. We aimed to confirm the effect of MBPs on psychological distress, and to understand whether and how baseline distress, gender, age, education, and dispositional mindfulness modify the effect of MBPs on distress among adults in non-clinical settings.

Methods

We conducted a pre-registered systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42020200117). Thirteen databases were searched in December 2020 for randomised controlled trials satisfying a quality threshold and comparing in-person, expert-defined MBPs in non-clinical settings with passive control groups. Two researchers independently selected, extracted, and appraised trials using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB2). Anonymised IPD of eligible trials were sought from collaborating authors. The primary outcome was psychological distress (unpleasant mental or emotional experiences including anxiety and depression) at 1 to 6 months after programme completion. Data were checked and imputed if missing. Pairwise, random-effects, two-stage IPD meta-analyses were conducted. Effect modification analyses followed a within-studies approach. Public and professional stakeholders were involved in the planning, conduct and dissemination of this study.

Results

Fifteen trials were eligible, 13 trialists shared IPD (2,371 participants representing 8 countries, median age 34 years-old, 71% women, moderately distressed on average, 20% missing outcome data). In comparison with passive control groups, MBPs reduced average distress between one- and six-months post-intervention with a small to moderate effect size (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to -0.24; p-value < 0.001; 95% prediction interval (PI) -0.41 to -0.24 (no heterogeneity)). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses, and similar for the other psychological distress time point ranges. Confidence in the primary outcome result is high. We found no clear indication that this effect is modified by baseline psychological distress, gender, age, education level, or dispositional mindfulness.

Conclusions

Group-based teacher-led MBPs generally reduce psychological distress among community adults who volunteer to receive this type of intervention. More research is needed to identify sources of variability in outcomes at an individual level.

Mindfulness Intervention for Improving Psychological Wellbeing Among Students During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

The COVID-19 pandemic can cause mental health problems such as stress, social anxiety, depression, and decrease social life on students. Mental health problems need to be taken seriously to develop the stage of development and improve the psychological well-being of students on learning in the school. The aim of this study was to explore mindfulness interventions to improve psychological well-being among students. This study used the Scoping Review method. Literature from CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus databases. The keywords used in English are psychological wellbeing, students, and mindfulness. The inclusion criteria were full text, study design randomized control trial or quasi-experimental, English language, population and sample were students, and the publication period is the last 10 years (2013-2022). From 2194 articles based on initial research, we found 10 articles were analyzed related to mindfulness interventions consisting of several methods, namely internet-based mindfulness, mindfulness-based intervention, and mindfulness-based stress reduction. Most of samples the study from the United States with the range samples were 20-166 students. Mindfulness interventions can be carried out improve the psychological well-being of students. Mindfulness therapy is done by fully concentrating the mind in meditation so that it can improve psychological health. Providing mindfulness therapy involves health workers such as nurses and psychologists to provide comprehensive therapy covering both physical and psychological aspects.

Are mindful people less aggressive? The role of emotion regulation in the relations between mindfulness and aggression

Inducing mindfulness has shown a promising effect on reducing aggression in both clinical and nonclinical populations, possibly because mindfulness can improve emotion regulation. The present study examined the association between mindfulness and aggression through potential mediating effects of several emotion regulation strategies. University and community samples of U.S. adults completed questionnaires on mindfulness, emotion regulation strategies, and trait aggression. Results indicate that mindfulness was associated with rumination and expressive suppression, which mediated the mindfulness-aggression relationship. Most facets of mindfulness were unrelated to the use of reflection and cognitive reappraisal. The nonjudging of experience facet of mindfulness was negatively related to hostility through rumination and expressive suppression. In contrast, the observing mindfulness facet was positively related to verbal aggression and hostility; these relations were mediated by rumination and expressive suppression.

Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in adults in nonclinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is an urgent need for mental health promotion in nonclinical settings. Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are being widely implemented to reduce stress, but a comprehensive evidence synthesis is lacking. We reviewed trials to assess whether MBPs promote mental health relative to no intervention or comparator interventions.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Following a detailed preregistered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42018105213) developed with public and professional stakeholders, 13 databases were searched to August 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining in-person, expert-defined MBPs in nonclinical settings. Two researchers independently selected, extracted, and appraised trials using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were psychometrically validated anxiety, depression, psychological distress, and mental well-being questionnaires at 1 to 6 months after programme completion. Multiple testing was performed using p < 0.0125 (Bonferroni) for statistical significance. Secondary outcomes, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were prespecified. Pairwise random-effects multivariate meta-analyses and prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated. A total of 11,605 participants in 136 trials were included (29 countries, 77% women, age range 18 to 73 years). Compared with no intervention, in most but not all scenarios MBPs improved average anxiety (8 trials; standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to -0.33; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.19 to 0.06), depression (14 trials; SMD = -0.53; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.34; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.14 to 0.07), distress (27 trials; SMD = -0.45; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.31; p-value < 0.001; 95% PI -1.04 to 0.14), and well-being (9 trials; SMD = 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54; p-value = 0.003; 95% PI -0.29 to 0.94). Compared with nonspecific active control conditions, in most but not all scenarios MBPs improved average depression (6 trials; SMD = -0.46; 95% CI -0.81 to -0.10; p-value = 0.012, 95% PI -1.57 to 0.66), with no statistically significant evidence for improving anxiety or distress and no reliable data on well-being. Compared with specific active control conditions, there is no statistically significant evidence of MBPs' superiority. Only effects on distress remained when higher-risk trials were excluded. USA-based trials reported smaller effects. MBPs targeted at higher-risk populations had larger effects than universal MBPs. The main limitation of this review is that confidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is moderate to very low, mainly due to inconsistency and high risk of bias in many trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with taking no action, MBPs of the included studies promote mental health in nonclinical settings, but given the heterogeneity between studies, the findings do not support generalisation of MBP effects across every setting. MBPs may have specific effects on some common mental health symptoms. Other preventative interventions may be equally effective. Implementation of MBPs in nonclinical settings should be partnered with thorough research to confirm findings and learn which settings are most likely to benefit.