Mindfulness in Context: A Useful Principle, Not a Universal Answer

Review & Opinion. A focused comparative evidence review with interpretation by Matthias Behrends.

Mindfulness is to the mind what massage is to the body. It can feel good and help with some problems, but by itself it is not a complete programme for building strength, flexibility, or overall fitness.

Matthias Behrends

Mindfulness can be useful in psychological care, education, and everyday practice. It can help people notice experience more clearly, respond less automatically, and relate differently to difficult thoughts and feelings.

That does not make it a universal answer. It does not make every mindfulness programme the same, and it does not show that mindfulness is generally better than another credible use of the same time and attention.

Mindfulness is not one thing

The word mindfulness is used for several different things:

• A capacity or quality of attention: noticing present experience with less automatic reaction or identification.
• A practice: for example, focused attention, body scanning, or open monitoring.
• A structured programme: such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) or Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT).

These categories overlap, but they are not interchangeable. MBCT, for example, combines mindfulness practice with elements of cognitive therapy. Evidence for a structured, teacher-led programme cannot automatically be transferred to a meditation app, an occasional breathing exercise, or every practice described as mindful.

Research identifies several capacities that may develop through mindfulness practice, including present-centred awareness, meta-awareness, nonreactivity, dereification or decentring, and changes in self-related processing. The boundaries and measurement of these capacities remain contested, and observed programme effects may also include factors that are not specific to mindfulness (Wielgosz et al., 2019).

The comparator changes the answer

A waitlist comparison asks whether a programme is better than receiving little or no additional support. An active comparison asks a harder and often more useful question: whether it is better than another credible programme involving time, attention, expectation, teaching, or therapeutic work.

This difference matters. An umbrella review of 44 meta-analyses, covering 336 randomized controlled trials and 30,483 participants, found that mindfulness-based interventions usually outperformed passive controls. Effects were generally smaller and less often statistically significant when the comparison was an active intervention. Across most of the populations and outcomes reviewed, mindfulness-based interventions were not clearly superior to established evidence-based treatments (Goldberg et al., 2022).

A broad psychiatric meta-analysis showed the same gradient. Across 142 independent samples, mindfulness-based interventions had a moderate advantage over no treatment, a smaller advantage over specific active controls, and no average difference from established evidence-based treatments. The estimated post-treatment effect fell from d = 0.55 against no treatment to d = 0.23 against a specific active intervention and d = -0.004 against an evidence-based treatment (Goldberg et al., 2018).

A stricter review of 19 trials reached a more sceptical conclusion. Mindfulness-based interventions outperformed no treatment and treatment as usual, but not placebo or other active treatments. Better study quality was associated with smaller effects (Hedman-Lagerlöf et al., 2018).

These reviews do not prove that mindfulness and other treatments are equivalent. A non-significant difference can also reflect too few direct comparisons or imprecise estimates. They do show why “better than no intervention” should not be translated into “the best available intervention.”

That distinction has practical consequences. Recommending mindfulness by default carries an opportunity cost: a person may invest limited time, attention, money, trust, and hope in an intervention that is less suitable or less effective than another available option. A technique can help and still leave someone with less benefit than a better-matched alternative could have provided.

A five-minute head-to-head: cyclic sighing outperformed mindfulness on mood

A remote randomized controlled trial assigned 108 adults to five minutes a day for 28 days of mindfulness meditation or one of three structured breathing exercises. All four groups showed daily increases in positive affect and reductions in state anxiety and negative affect. The breathing conditions produced a larger increase in positive affect than mindfulness meditation. Exhale-focused cyclic sighing produced the largest increase and also reduced respiratory rate more than mindfulness meditation (Balban et al., 2023).

The comparison is striking because practice time was matched. It is also narrow. Most participants were recruited from a Stanford undergraduate psychology class, people with moderate to severe psychiatric or relevant medical conditions were excluded, practice was remote, and the outcomes concerned short-term mood, anxiety, and physiology rather than clinical recovery. For a brief daily stress-management exercise, structured sigh-breathing was the stronger option on the outcomes where the study detected a difference. The trial does not establish that cyclic sighing is a universally superior mental-health treatment.

Where mindfulness has a more specific place

The evidence becomes more useful when it is tied to a defined population, outcome, programme, and alternative.

Non-clinical stress and mental health promotion

In non-clinical adult settings, a review of 136 randomized trials found small to moderate average improvements in anxiety, depression, distress, and well-being compared with no intervention. Superiority was much less consistent against active alternatives, and there was no clear advantage over specific comparators such as physical exercise (Galante et al., 2021).

This supports mindfulness as one credible route for some people. It does not establish it as the generally best route to well-being.

Recurrent depression

Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy has one of the clearest indication-specific evidence bases. A network meta-analysis found lower relapse risk than treatment as usual, but no statistically significant difference from active prevention strategies (McCartney et al., 2021). An individual-participant-data meta-analysis found a modest advantage over pooled active treatments, with greater benefit among people who had more residual depressive symptoms before treatment (Kuyken et al., 2016).

This is a meaningful role for a defined programme in a defined context. It is not evidence that mindfulness should organize every response to depression.

Anxiety disorders

A review of 23 trials in diagnosed anxiety disorders found only one direct comparison of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy with Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT); that trial did not detect a significant short-term difference. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction produced smaller patient-rated anxiety improvements than CBT. Long-term comparisons remained uncertain, and many trials had unclear risk of bias (Haller et al., 2021).

The practical conclusion is not that mindfulness has no place in anxiety care. It is that the particular programme and the quality of the alternative matter, especially when another treatment has a more established long-term evidence base.

Chronic pain

A network meta-analysis estimated clinically important advantages over controls for group-based Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, although the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction estimate for pain intensity remained uncertain. It did not establish an important difference between the two approaches. Most of that comparison was indirect because only one included trial tested them head to head (Khoo et al., 2019).

Here again, the evidence supports a credible option rather than a universal hierarchy.

Where the evidence supports a firmer limit

Several different findings are often collapsed into the claim that an intervention “does not work.” They should remain separate:

• Inferior: a credible comparison finds meaningfully worse outcomes.
• No added benefit: adding mindfulness does not improve an established intervention.
• Insufficient evidence: the research cannot yet support use for the stated purpose.
• Poor fit: the person experiences burden, deterioration, unwanted exposure, or no meaningful progress.

Only the first finding demonstrates inferiority. The others still matter when deciding whether mindfulness is an adequate use of time, an appropriate replacement, or a suitable practice for a particular person.

Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction was inferior to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy on short-term anxiety outcomes

In the anxiety-disorder review described above, direct comparisons found smaller short-term anxiety improvements with Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction than with Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. The standardized mean difference was 0.50 for both clinician-rated and patient-rated anxiety, favouring Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. The clinician-rated estimate came from two trials with 147 participants; the patient-rated estimate came from three trials with 222 participants (Haller et al., 2021).

This is evidence of inferiority for a specific programme, outcome, period, and comparison. It does not show that every mindfulness-based intervention is inferior for every anxiety problem. The single direct Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy comparison did not detect the same disadvantage, but it was not designed to establish noninferiority or equivalence.

A universal school programme was associated with slightly worse scores in some already at-risk adolescents

The My Resilience in Adolescence trial compared a ten-lesson school-based mindfulness curriculum with usual social-emotional teaching across 84 schools and 8,376 students aged 11 to 14. The programme was not superior on depression risk, social-emotional-behavioural functioning, or well-being at one year (Kuyken et al., 2022).

A broader 2025 review of 71 universal school-intervention studies with 63,041 participants found a comparative difference for anxiety: programmes informed by Cognitive Behavioural Therapy were significantly more effective than programmes based on mindfulness or on other or multiple theories. The same difference between programme types was not found for depression. Because this was a moderator analysis across varied programmes, with high heterogeneity in the anxiety evidence, it is a setting-specific comparative signal, not a direct ranking of every curriculum (Hayes et al., 2025).

A secondary latent-profile analysis found slightly worse depression-risk and well-being scores among students who were already at higher risk of mental health problems. The differences remained at one year, although the authors described them as small and not clinically relevant. They also warned that the analysis involved many tests, produced no more significant findings than chance might generate, and requires replication. This is a caution about the curriculum as delivered, not proof of harm to a defined subgroup (Montero-Marin et al., 2022).

This does not establish that mindfulness is harmful to adolescents as a group. It does show that universal delivery can fail to match the needs of the subgroup most likely to require more tailored support.

Mindfulness-based elements have not shown clear additional value within insomnia treatment programmes

A systematic review of nine studies examined mindfulness-based interventions within treatment systems related to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Insomnia. It did not establish improvement on the principal insomnia severity or sleep-quality measures. A very small effect appeared on a composite sleep variable, but the study designs did not consistently isolate the effect of adding mindfulness to an otherwise identical treatment (de Entrambasaguas et al., 2023).

This is not proof that mindfulness is inferior. It means the evidence does not support presenting it as a necessary addition to, or replacement for, the established insomnia-specific treatment.

Substance-use evidence does not establish mindfulness as a general replacement

A meta-analysis of nine randomized trials with 901 participants found no statistically significant advantage for Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention on relapse, frequency of use, treatment dropout, depression, or anxiety. Small improvements were found for craving or withdrawal and negative consequences of substance use, but the evidence was rated low certainty (Grant et al., 2017).

A broader Cochrane review identified 40 randomized trials, with 35 trials and 2,825 participants available for meta-analysis. Compared with other treatments, mindfulness-based interventions may slightly reduce the percentage of days with substance use. Evidence remained very uncertain for continuous abstinence, amount consumed, and craving, while adverse-event reporting was sparse (Goldberg et al., 2021).

Mindfulness may therefore have a place within the available treatment options. The evidence does not establish it as an adequate general replacement for a complete substance-use treatment and relapse-prevention plan.

Mindfulness should not displace first-line trauma-focused treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder

The 2023 United States Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense guideline strongly recommends Cognitive Processing Therapy, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, or Prolonged Exposure for post-traumatic stress disorder. It gives only a weak recommendation for Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and finds insufficient evidence for Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy and several other mindfulness trainings (Department of Veterans Affairs & Department of Defense, 2023).

This does not mean that Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction has no role. It means that generic mindfulness, brief mindfulness training, or another mindfulness-labelled practice should not be presented as an evidence-equivalent substitute for a recommended trauma-focused psychotherapy.

A mindfulness app is not the same as a supported programme or treatment

A 2024 meta-analysis of 45 randomized trials found small average reductions in depression and anxiety symptoms for mindfulness apps compared with control conditions. Comparisons with active therapeutic alternatives were not statistically significant, and the number of such comparisons was low (Linardon et al., 2024).

An app may be convenient and helpful. Current evidence does not make it an adequate replacement for assessment, relational support, a teacher-led programme, or a targeted treatment when those are needed.

Why a practice may not help

Average effects do not describe every participant. A qualitative study examined 194 adults with psychiatric diagnoses who had already not responded to standard mindfulness-based interventions. It identified recurring patterns involving effortful control, emotional avoidance or fear of exposure, fatigue from monitoring one’s own experience, distrust or lack of contextual fit, and self-critical or identity-related resistance (Akbari & Seydavi, 2025).

Because the study deliberately recruited nonresponders, it cannot tell us how often these patterns occur among all people who try mindfulness. Its value lies elsewhere: it shows that nonresponse is not one simple failure of motivation or practice. The same invitation to turn inward can function differently depending on personal history, current demands, relational safety, culture, facilitation, and the mental effort the practice requires.

Meditation-related adverse events have also been reported. A systematic review found wide variation across study designs and inconsistent monitoring, so its pooled estimate should not be treated as a precise risk for any one standard mindfulness course. The safer conclusion is that meditation practice is not automatically neutral for every person and that meaningful difficulty should be noticed rather than reframed as a need to try harder (Farias et al., 2020).

Mindfulness within a wider system

An informal mindfulness practice may also function as a recreational or well-being activity, much like dancing or surfing. Enjoyment, absorption, and indirect emotional benefit are legitimate reasons to practise it. They do not by themselves establish that the activity is a sufficiently specific primary mental-health intervention. Structured programmes such as Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy must be judged separately and against the purpose and alternatives at hand.

Within Deep Emotional Work (DEW), mindfulness-related capacities may appear across several techniques. Present-centred awareness, decentring, and reduced automatic reaction can all be useful. They are treated as working principles and learnable capacities, not as a container into which every other principle must be placed.

The organizing question is therefore not, “How do we integrate everything else into mindfulness?” It is: what kind of work is needed now, and which principle, technique, combination, sequence, and pace fit that need?

At one moment, careful observation may be central. At another, the more useful work may involve grounding, emotional stabilization, imagery, relational support, deliberate expression, cognitive examination, behavioural action, or referral to an appropriately qualified professional. Mindfulness can support some of these processes without becoming the name for all of them.

This position is neither dismissal nor devotion. Mindfulness does not have to be the most important principle in every situation to be valuable. It has to earn its place through fit, purpose, response, and comparison with the available alternatives.

Five questions before choosing a mindfulness practice

1. What is the intended outcome? Calming down, noticing patterns, preventing depressive relapse, managing pain, and developing attention are different aims.
2. What exactly is being offered? A brief exercise, an app, a teacher-led course, and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy are not the same intervention.
3. What are the credible alternatives? The relevant question is not only whether the practice can help, but whether another option fits the purpose better.
4. How does the person respond? Increased clarity is different from increased exhaustion, self-criticism, disorientation, or unwanted exposure.
5. What support and adaptation are available? Pacing, choice, relational trust, cultural fit, and professional competence can change the experience.

Conclusion

Mindfulness has a place. The evidence does not give it every place.

Like any other technique or working principle, mindfulness should be evaluated against credible alternatives for the particular purpose, person, and situation. A blanket recommendation is not neutral. If mindfulness is a poorer fit or a less effective option, recommending it can deprive someone of the greater, faster, or more durable benefit that another intervention might provide.

Mindfulness also benefits from a powerful cultural and marketing halo. It sounds familiar, positive, gentle, and broadly good for us. That feel-good reputation may make it easier to recommend, but it is not comparative evidence and does not make mindfulness the best choice in many situations. An intervention can be pleasant, helpful, and worthwhile without being the strongest available option.

Its benefits are clearest when the intervention, aim, population, conditions, and comparator are specified. Its limitations become visible when credible alternatives, nonresponse, and implementation conditions are taken seriously. The responsible question is therefore not whether mindfulness is good in the abstract, but whether it is the best available fit for the work that needs to be done.

Evidence and scope

This Review & Opinion article is an educational, focused comparison of selected high-level evidence and one directly relevant randomized trial. It combines cited evidence with clearly signalled interpretation by Matthias Behrends. It is not peer reviewed, a systematic review, clinical guideline, diagnosis, or treatment recommendation. The cited studies differ in intervention definitions, populations, outcomes, comparison groups, follow-up periods, and study quality. Clinical decisions require appropriately qualified professionals and case-specific assessment.

Selected sources

1. Akbari, M., & Seydavi, M. (2025). Why mindfulness doesn't work for everyone: Networked lived tensions in a reflexive thematic study across psychiatric contexts. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 32(6), e70194.
2. Balban, M. Y., Neri, E., Kogon, M. M., Weed, L., Nouriani, B., Jo, B., Holl, G., Zeitzer, J. M., Spiegel, D., & Huberman, A. D. (2023). Brief structured respiration practices enhance mood and reduce physiological arousal. Cell Reports Medicine, 4(1), 100895.
3. de Entrambasaguas, M., Díaz-Silveira, C., Burgos-Julián, F. A., & Santed, M. A. (2023). Can mindfulness-based interventions improve outcomes in cognitive-behavioural therapy for chronic insomnia disorder in the general population? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 30(5), 965-978.
4. Farias, M., Maraldi, E., Wallenkampf, K. C., & Lucchetti, G. (2020). Adverse events in meditation practices and meditation-based therapies: A systematic review. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 142(5), 374-393.
5. Galante, J., Friedrich, C., Dawson, A. F., Modrego-Alarcón, M., Gebbing, P., Delgado-Suárez, I., Gupta, R., Dean, L., Dalgleish, T., White, I. R., & Jones, P. B. (2021). Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in adults in nonclinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLOS Medicine, 18(1), e1003481.
6. Goldberg, S. B., Tucker, R. P., Greene, P. A., Davidson, R. J., Wampold, B. E., Kearney, D. J., & Simpson, T. L. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions for psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 59, 52-60.
7. Goldberg, S. B., Pace, B., Griskaitis, M., Willutzki, R., Skoetz, N., Thoenes, S., Zgierska, A. E., & Rösner, S. (2021). Mindfulness-based interventions for substance use disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 10, CD011723.
8. Goldberg, S. B., Riordan, K. M., Sun, S., & Davidson, R. J. (2022). The empirical status of mindfulness-based interventions: A systematic review of 44 meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 108-130.
9. Grant, S., Colaiaco, B., Motala, A., Shanman, R., Booth, M., Sorbero, M., & Hempel, S. (2017). Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention for substance use disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Addiction Medicine, 11(5), 386-396.
10. Haller, H., Breilmann, P., Schröter, M., Dobos, G., & Cramer, H. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions for DSM-5 anxiety disorders. Scientific Reports, 11, 20385.
11. Hayes, D. H., et al. (2025). Universal, school-based, interventions to improve emotional outcomes in children and young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 4, 1526840.
12. Hedman-Lagerlöf, M., Hedman-Lagerlöf, E., & Öst, L.-G. (2018). The empirical support for mindfulness-based interventions for common psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 48(13), 2116-2129.
13. Khoo, E. L., Small, R., Cheng, W., Hatchard, T., Glynn, B., Rice, D. B., Skidmore, B., Kenny, S., Hutton, B., & Poulin, P. A. (2019). Comparative evaluation of group-based Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for the treatment and management of chronic pain: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 22(1), 26-35.
14. Kuyken, W., Warren, F. C., Taylor, R. S., Whalley, B., Crane, C., Bondolfi, G., Hayes, R., Huijbers, M., Ma, H., Schweizer, S., Segal, Z., Speckens, A., Teasdale, J. D., Van Heeringen, K., Williams, M., Byford, S., Byng, R., & Dalgleish, T. (2016). Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in prevention of depressive relapse: An individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized trials. JAMA Psychiatry, 73(6), 565-574.
15. Kuyken, W., et al. (2022). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of universal school-based mindfulness training compared with normal school provision in reducing risk of mental health problems and promoting well-being in adolescence: The MYRIAD cluster randomised controlled trial. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 25(3), 99-109.
16. Linardon, J., Messer, M., Goldberg, S. B., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2024). The efficacy of mindfulness apps on symptoms of depression and anxiety: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical Psychology Review, 107, 102370.
17. McCartney, M., Nevitt, S., Lloyd, A., Hill, R., White, R., & Duarte, R. (2021). Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for prevention and time to depressive relapse: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 143(1), 6-21.
18. Montero-Marin, J., et al. (2022). School-based mindfulness training in early adolescence: What works, for whom and how in the MYRIAD trial? Evidence-Based Mental Health, 25(3), 117-124.
19. United States Department of Veterans Affairs & United States Department of Defense. (2023). VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for management of posttraumatic stress disorder and acute stress disorder.
20. Wielgosz, J., Goldberg, S. B., Kral, T. R. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2019). Mindfulness meditation and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 285-316.

Cite this article

Behrends, M. (2026). Mindfulness in context: A useful principle, not a universal answer. Deep Emotional Work Academy.