(PS10-A7) A Systematic Review of Mindfulness-based Ecological Momentary Interventions: Examining Current Methods and Identifying Directions for Future Research

Mindfulness-based interventions improve psychological and physical health outcomes across different populations (e.g., diverse clinical samples; health care workers; Fendel et al., 2020; Keng et al., 2011; Khoury et al., 2013a; Khoury et al., 2013b; Schutte & Malouf, 2014). Understanding how best to disseminate mindfulness-based interventions is imperative for addressing disparities in support service access, reducing mental health difficulties, and fostering well-being (DeLuca et al., 2018; Michalak et al., 2020). One avenue used to disseminate mindfulness-based interventions is ecological momentary interventions (EMIs). EMIs are generally delivered using various forms of technology, wherein treatments are provided in real time, in real-world settings, and in an individual’s natural environment (Heron & Smyth, 2010). In meta-analytic and systematic reviews, EMIs have been shown to improve mental health outcomes (Heron & Smyth, 2010; Versluis et al., 2016). Despite the potential utility of EMIs, there is considerable heterogeneity in how these interventions are designed and delivered. Consolidation of specific types of EMIs is needed to understand (a) how these interventions are implemented and (b) ways to best design and adapt them to individual populations. We conducted a systematic review of mindfulness-based EMIs with literature searches occurring in November 2022. Google Scholar, PubMed, and Cochrane were screened using various search terms (e.g., “mindfulness ecological momentary intervention”) without publication date restrictions. References from pertinent systematic and meta-analytic reviews were also screened by two authors, with discrepancies resolved by a third expert reviewer. Covidence (Kellermeyer et al., 2018), an evidence-based tool for systematic review flow, was used to organize the review. After conducting the search and screening references from relevant systematic/meta-analytic reviews, 4921 references were screened. After removing duplicates and merging pertinent files at the full-text screening stage (preprints vs. published forms of the same article), 2583 studies were screened, and 147 full texts were assessed for eligibility. The final number of studies included for data extraction was 84. Data synthesis is currently ongoing (43 studies analyzed), and complete results will be presented in relation to intervention design, dosage, delivery, embedding (e.g., with/without psychotherapy), whether the intervention was app-based, operationalization of mindfulness, content, outcomes, power, target audience, and demographics. Key findings thus far suggest significant variability in design of mindfulness-based EMIs, inclusion of predominantly White samples (or lack of reporting on demographic/minoritized status altogether), and mostly underpowered studies. While mindfulness-based EMIs offer a unique way to increase access to evidence-based interventions and have potential for promoting psychological well-being and reducing mental health difficulties, additional research including racially and ethnically diverse samples, sufficiently powered studies, and standardization of methods is necessary.