By John M. de Castro, Ph.D.

 

In today’s Research News article “Mindfulness-based interventions for binge eating: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis” (See summary below or view the full text of the study at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11893636/ ) Liu and colleagues review, summarize, and perform a meta-analysis on published research studies on the application of mindfulness therapies on binge eating. They report that the published research found that mindfulness therapies significantly reduced binge eating.

 

Use mindfulness therapies to treat binge eating.

 

CMCS – Center for Mindfulness and Contemplative Studies

 

This and other Contemplative Studies posts are also available on the Contemplative Studies Blog  http://contemplative-studies.org

 

Study Summary

 

Liu J, Tynan M, Mouangue A, Martin C, Manasse S, Godfrey K. Mindfulness-based interventions for binge eating: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Behav Med. 2025 Feb;48(1):57-89. doi: 10.1007/s10865-025-00550-5. Epub 2025 Feb 20. PMID: 39979674; PMCID: PMC11893636.

 

Abstract

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have gained popularity in recent years in treating binge eating. Previous reviews and meta-analyses have found that MBIs demonstrated medium-large to large effects in reducing binge eating. However, as the literature on this topic has been growing rapidly, an updated review on MBIs’ effectiveness is much needed. This study is a 10-year update of the Godfrey, Gallo, & Afari (2015) systematic review and meta-analysis of MBIs for binge eating. PubMED, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were searched using keywords including binge eating, overeating, objective bulimic episodes, acceptance and commitment therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, mindfulness, meditation, and mindful eating. Results indicate there has been a large increase in the number of studies testing MBIs for binge eating in the past 10 years with 54 studies meeting inclusion criteria, compared to 19 ten years ago. The majority of the studies yielded large and medium effect sizes. The random effects meta-analysis of between-group effect sizes yielded medium-large effects for MBIs versus non-psychological intervention controls at post-treatment (mean Hedge’s g = − 0.65) and follow-up (mean Hedge’s g = − 0.71), and negligible effects for MBIs versus active psychological controls at post-treatment (mean Hedge’s g = − 0.05) and follow-up (mean Hedge’s g = 0.13). Of all MBIs, DBT had the most studies with large effects. More studies examined MBIs that directly targeted binge eating had larger effects than studies with MBIs targeting other health outcomes (with binge eating as a secondary outcome). New studies included in the current review were internationally-conducted, focused more on participants with overweight or obesity, involved more self-help and technology-based components, and had more novel and innovative interventions components. Future MBIs research should conduct more RCTs comparing MBIs with other psychological interventions, conduct meta-analyses to examine the effectiveness of different types of MBIs and intervention targets, and extend follow-up periods.