> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.meditation-research.org.uk/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Mindfulness- and Acceptance-based Interventions and Perceived Post-Traumatic Growth: A New Meta-Analysis Aggregated the Evidence - URL: https://www.meditation-research.org.uk/mindfulness-and-acceptance-based-interventions-and-perceived-post-traumatic-growth-a-new-meta-analysis-aggregated-the-evidence/ - Published: 2026-11-06T16:20:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-11-06T16:19:59.000Z - Description: A meta-analysis of nine trials, all in cancer patients, found medium effects of mindfulness- and acceptance-based interventions on post-traumatic growth, particularly for seeing new possibilities. But the evidence is limited by passive control groups, bias concerns, and a narrow population base. - Author: Dr Peter Malinowski - Tags: Research Methods & Evidence, Aggregated Evidence, Mindfulness-Based, Acceptance, #Paper Brief ## Citation and paper identity St Laurent, J., Limond, J., & Karl, A. (2026). The effect of mindfulness and acceptance on perceived post-traumatic growth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. *European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 10,* 100715\. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2026.100715](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2026.100715?ref=meditation-research.org.uk) \[open access\] ## Why this paper matters Most mindfulness research focuses on symptom reduction, such as less anxiety, less depression, lower stress. This paper looks at something different: whether mindfulness- and acceptance-based interventions (MABIs) are associated with *perceived post-traumatic growth* (PTG), meaning positive psychological change that people report after a traumatic experience, such as cancer diagnosis and treatment. This matters for a simple reason: from positive psychology we know growth is not the same as the reduction or absence of distress. A field that only measures symptom reduction may be missing an important part of the picture. This review is a useful test case for whether current evidence can support broader claims about mindfulness and human development, not just clinical symptom relief. ## What was studied? The review asked how effective MABIs are at increasing perceived PTG, both overall (Global PTG) and across the five domains measured by the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI): New Possibilities, Relating to Others, Personal Strength, Spiritual Change, and Appreciation of Life. The interventions included Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), mindfulness-based cancer recovery, an app-based mindfulness programme, telephone-delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), couple-based PTG-focused skills training, and Naikan/Morita-based therapy. All have in common that they use mindfulness and/or acceptance practices to cultivate present moment awareness and experiential acceptance, but otherwise are genuinely mixed set of approaches. It is worth keeping this in mind: formats and intensities differ considerably. ## Who took part? Nine randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, totalling 1,114 participants. After excluding two "outlier" studies that would have distorted the effect size estimates, the pooled meta-analyses were based on seven trials and 976 participants, 501 in MABI groups , 475 in the control groups. All nine trials were conducted with **cancer patients**, across Australia, Canada, China, Iran, and the USA. No other trauma-exposed populations (such as survivors of accidents, assault, disaster, or combat) were represented. On the one hand, this reigns in sample heterogeneity, on the other hand it significantly reduces the scope and limits how far the findings can reasonably be generalised. ## What did the researchers do? The authors searched bibliographic databases and grey literature up to January 2026, restricted to English-language studies in adults, and preregistered the review on PROSPERO. Eligible studies were RCTs of MABIs reporting PTGI total or subscale scores. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Effect sizes were calculated as Hedges' g and combined using random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustments, a method that produces more conservative confidence intervals when the number of studies is small. Outlier and influence analyses were used to identify and exclude two studies that disproportionately affected the pooled results. The authors also used funnel plots, trim-and-fill, limit meta-analysis, and p-curve analysis to explore publication bias and the evidential value of the findings. ## What did they find? Across the pooled analyses: - **Global PTG:** medium effect, g = 0.54, 95% CI \[0.24, 0.83\] - **New Possibilities:** medium effect, g = 0.51, 95% CI \[0.27, 0.75\] - **Relating to Others:** small effect, g = 0.39, 95% CI \[0.19, 0.59\] - **Personal Strength:** small effect, g = 0.38, 95% CI \[0.17, 0.60\] - **Appreciation of Life:** weak effect, g = 0.24, 95% CI \[0.035, 0.44\] - **Spiritual Change:** negligible effect, g = 0.14, 95% CI \[0.03, 0.27\] Follow-up bias and evidential-value checks did not support the Spiritual Change and Appreciation of Life results as robust, which weakens confidence in those two domains specifically, even though their confidence intervals excluded zero. Eight of the nine trials reported a positive effect on at least one PTG domain; one app-based mindfulness study found no benefit. Interestingly, the single largest effect in the dataset came from a high-intensity Naikan/Morita intervention—but this study was excluded from the pooled analyses because it behaved as a statistical outlier, disproportionately inflating the combined estimate. The only trial with an active comparator (rather than a passive control) found that MBSR outperformed supportive-expressive therapy for *New Possibilities* and *Global PTG*, which is a somewhat stronger piece of evidence than the rest of the dataset, where most comparisons were against waitlist or usual care. ## What are the main limitations? Several limitations temper how these results should be read: - **Single population:** every trial was conducted with cancer patients, so it is not known whether similar effects would appear in other trauma-exposed groups. - **Passive controls:** most comparison groups were waitlist or usual care, so observed effects may partly reflect attention, expectancy, group support, or simply doing a structured activity—not something specific to mindfulness or acceptance. - **Risk of bias:** no included study was rated low risk; three were high risk and six had some concerns. - **Intervention heterogeneity:** the MABIs varied substantially in content, intensity, and delivery format, making it hard to say which specific components (if any) drove the effects. - **Perceived, not verified, growth:** the PTGI measures self-reported perception of growth, which cannot distinguish genuine psychological change from optimistic self-report or coping narrative. - **Single-rater extraction:** screening, data extraction, and effect-size calculation were carried out by the lead author without independent duplicate checking, raising the chance of error. - **Exploratory bias checks:** publication-bias analyses were limited by the small number of included studies. ## How much confidence should be placed in the result? This is a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis—a relatively strong design in principle—but the underlying evidence base is thin. Nine trials, concentrated in one clinical population, with risk-of-bias concerns in every study, is a modest foundation. The authors' own additional checks (outlier exclusion, p-curve, trim-and-fill) suggest they were appropriately cautious, and notably these checks undermined confidence in two of the five PTGI domains rather than supporting them uniformly. The medium effects for *Global PTG* and *New Possibilities* are the most defensible findings here, but even these rest on predominantly passive-controlled comparisons, which limits interpretation as effects specific to mindfulness or acceptance. The one active-comparator trial is informative but cannot carry the weight of a field-level conclusion on its own. Overall, this supports a cautious reading: plausible signal, not established effect. ## Why might this matter for research or practice? For research, this paper is a useful illustration of a broader pattern: mindfulness research has historically been built around symptom reduction, and tools for measuring broader developmental outcomes like growth, meaning, or flourishing remain comparatively underdeveloped. The PTGI captures perceived growth, not verified change, and the review's own caveats about this measurement gap are worth taking seriously rather than glossing over. At the same time, I think we can take it as encouragement for researchers to widen their focus and to also consider positive psychology dimensions such as growth, strengths, meaning, purpose or flourishing. For practice, the findings offer a possibility rather than a prescription. If someone is navigating life after a cancer diagnosis, a structured mindfulness or acceptance-based programme *may* support a sense of new possibilities, improved relationships, or personal strength—but this is based on cancer populations specifically, using particular programme formats (MBSR, ACT-based telephone sessions, and others), mostly compared to "doing nothing" in particular. Extending this to other kinds of trauma, or treating it as a reliable route to growth, goes beyond what the data currently show. Anyone considering these programmes in a clinical or personal context should weigh the modest, domain-specific evidence against the practical realities of programme intensity, adherence, and individual variation in response. ## Related topics and publications - Post-traumatic growth and meaning-making after illness or trauma - The *mindfulness-to-meaning theory* as a theoretical perspective how mindfulness may lead to growth ([Garland et al, 2015](https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.1064294?ref=meditation-research.org.uk)). - Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) in oncology settings - Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) as a distinct acceptance-based approach, separate from mindfulness-only interventions - [An introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analyses](https://www.meditation-research.org.uk/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analyses/) - The distinction between symptom-reduction outcomes and flourishing-oriented outcomes in contemplative research Written with AI assistance — [see how](https://www.meditation-research.org.uk/about/#ai-use-on-this-site).