I came across a large meta-analysis (combining the results of multiple studies) that made me pause. It asked the question: Can mindfulness training genuinely sharpen how our minds work? And it pulled together data from 111 randomized controlled trials with over 9,500 participants. The result is one of the most detailed looks yet at how mindfulness affects thinking skills.
Published in Health Psychology Review (2024), this study pooled results from trials where people new to meditation were randomly assigned either to a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI)—programs like mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)—or to a control group (no treatment, waitlist, or another active program).
The aim: test the impact of mindfulness training on global cognition (overall thinking ability) and 15 specific mental skills, from memory to attention.
The Study
The study compared results from 111 trials, the participants ranged from children to older adults (ages 4–80), with an average age of 34. Some were healthy, others had elevated psychiatric symptoms, and some had medical conditions. Importantly, all were new to mindfulness.
Interventions varied in length (from 2 to 90 sessions), but all were taught focused attention (staying with a chosen object, like the breath, despite distractions) and/or open monitoring (observing thoughts and sensations without reacting). Training could be face-to-face or self-guided.
Researchers measured thinking skills before and after the programs using behavioral tests (e.g., attention tasks, memory games) or self-report measures (“How sharp do you feel mentally?”). They compared results to control groups, and they also checked whether factors like delivery method, participant type, or program format made a difference.
What they found
The short version: Mindfulness helped—but in specific ways.
Compared to doing nothing or to other active programs, mindfulness-based intervention (MBIs) had small-to-moderate benefits for:
- Global cognition - overall thinking ability
- Executive attention - managing conflicting thoughts or tasks
- Working memory accuracy - holding and updating information
- Inhibition accuracy - resisting automatic responses
- Shifting accuracy - switching between tasks or perspectives
- Sustained attention accuracy - maintaining focus over time
- How sharp people felt mentally - subjective cognitive functioning
Effects were strongest in people with elevated mental health problems like stress, anxiety, and depression. Benefits persisted for global cognition months after training ended. However, there was little to no impact on processing speed, episodic memory, verbal fluency, or error rates.
Why This Matters
From a career lens, the skills that improved—focus, resisting distractions, mental flexibility—are the same ones that support effective decision-making, complex problem-solving, and learning new skills.
Some of the improvements are also accuracy-centric, which translates to fewer errors, steadier attention, better conflict management—ideal for deep work, data review, and decision-making under pressure.
If you struggle with stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, you may see larger cognitive benefits from MBIs.
These “mindfulness perks” are essential to navigate your career and workplace effectively.
Why This Happens
The paper links these gains to how mindfulness trains attentional control. Focused attention practice strengthens the brain’s ability to stay on task and return after distraction. Open monitoring helps you notice thoughts without getting swept away, reducing mental “noise.” Over time, this likely frees up mental resources for accuracy in tasks that require holding and manipulating information.
Implications & Benefits
- Improved ability to concentrate deeply, even under distraction
- Better mental flexibility when switching between tasks
- Stronger self-regulation in high-pressure situations
- Potential cognitive boost for people managing mental health challenges
- Benefits possible from shorter programs—helpful for busy schedules
Practitioner Tips: How You Can Try This
- Daily micro-practice (10–12 min):
- Micro-practice at work: Before opening email, pause for 60 seconds, notice your breath, then proceed with a single clear intention.
- Task-shifting drill: Between meetings, take three slow breaths while noting “arriving” in the next task before diving in.
- Focused-attention breath (5 min): count breaths 1–10; when distracted, gently return. (Targets executive attention/inhibition accuracy).
- Open-monitoring (4 min): notice thoughts/sensations without judgment; label (“thinking,” “hearing,”) and let go. (Supports shifting accuracy, sustained attention).
- One-task interval (5–10 min): choose one task.Bring your attention back every time it wanders—no judgment. Aim for error-free accuracy over speed—set a timer.
- Weekly (20–30 min): a longer work session (pomodoro timer fits perfectly here) + brief reflection on errors vs speed in your week (journaling).
- If symptomatic (anxiety/low mood): MBIs may be especially helpful for your cognitive performance—consider starting sooner.
Final Thoughts
This meta-analysis shows mindfulness isn’t a cure-all for every mental skill, but it does give measurable, lasting lifts to some of the ones that matter most for learning, working, and living well. Even a little practice can make a difference.
Technical Summary
TL;DR
- Study: Meta-analysis of 111 randomized trials (n = 9,538) testing mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) on global cognition and 15 subdomains. 【turn1file0†L37-L45】
- Finding: MBIs produced small–moderate improvements in global cognition, executive attention, working memory (accuracy), inhibition (accuracy), shifting (accuracy), sustained attention, and subjective cognitive function—especially versus waitlist/no-treatment; effects also held versus active controls (Table 2). Latency/speed outcomes generally did not improve. 【turn1file9†L27-L34】【turn1file5†L23-L31】【turn1file0†L45-L55】
- Why does it matter: Benefits cluster on accuracy (fewer errors, steadier focus) rather than speed—useful for knowledge work where mistakes cost more than milliseconds.
If you can focus a little better and make fewer mistakes, your day gets easier. This review pooled 111 RCTs and 9,538 people to see if mindfulness training helps cognition—and which mental skills actually improve. 【turn1file0†L37-L45】
Research question: do MBIs improve global cognition and specific domains (attention, executive functions, memory) versus waitlist/no-treatment and active control programs? 【turn1file0†L21-L31】
A comprehensive meta-analysis (1989–2022 searches) synthesized global cognition and 15 cognitive subdomains using random-effects models with robust variance estimation (RVE) and Hedges’ g. Publication bias was probed via p-uniform and funnel plots; heterogeneity via Q and I². Effects were adjusted for reported treatment fidelity. Overall, MBIs improved global cognition and six accuracy-focused domains versus both waitlist/no-treatment and active controls; speed/latency measures and several memory/fluency outcomes were null. Benefits tended to be larger for participants with elevated psychiatric symptoms; face-to-face delivery outperformed self-guided when compared to active controls; tailored (non-standard) MBIs sometimes exceeded standard MBSR/MBCT versus active controls (Table 2). 【turn1file7†L7-L39】【turn1file11†L57-L69】【turn1file5†L23-L31】【turn1file1†L1-L6】【turn1file1†L8-L14】【turn1file1†L40-L54】
Methods Overview
Participants across 111 RCTs were meditation-naïve and randomized to an MBI (teaching focused attention/open monitoring with homework) or a control (waitlist/no-treatment or active program). Trials delivered ≥2 sessions; outcomes included behavioral cognitive tasks and/or self-reports, assessed pre–post (and follow-up for global cognition). Analyses used random-effects, RVE, Hedges’ g, outlier removal, Q/I² for heterogeneity, p-uniform and funnel plots for publication bias. 【turn1file3†L3-L17】【turn1file8†L45-L61】【turn1file7†L7-L39】【turn1file11†L57-L69】【turn1file11†L71-L79】
Study Design Snapshot
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Design | Meta-analysis of 111 RCTs of MBIs vs waitlist/no-treatment and vs active controls (e.g., CBT, training, psychoeducation, TAU). 【turn1file0†L37-L45】【turn1file8†L3-L11】 |
| Participants | n = 9,538; average age ≈34y; 57.85% female; 22 countries (largest: U.S.). Demographics variably reported (e.g., ethnicity in 37%). (Tables S2–S3). 【turn1file9†L1-L7】 |
| Intervention / Exposure | Standard MBSR/MBCT and non-standard/tailored MBIs; ≥2 sessions with homework; face-to-face or self-guided/app. 【turn1file3†L11-L17】【turn1file8†L7-L11】 |
| Comparator | Waitlist/no-treatment; active controls (CBT, cognitive training, psychoeducation-only, TAU). 【turn1file8†L3-L11】 |
| Outcome Measures | Global cognition + 15 subdomains (e.g., executive attention, WM accuracy/latency, inhibition accuracy/latency, shifting accuracy/latency, sustained attention, processing speed, verbal fluency, episodic memory, subjective cognition, cognitive error). (Table 1; OSM Table S1 lists tests). 【turn1file8†L45-L61】 |
| Follow-up Length | Follow-up synthesized for global cognition only; durations vary across trials. Not reported uniformly. 【turn1file7†L69-L71】 |
| Statistical Analysis | Random-effects + RVE (small-sample corrections), Hedges’ g; outlier deletion; Q/I² for heterogeneity; p-uniform + funnel plots for publication bias; alpha threshold/corrections: Not reported. 【turn1file7†L7-L39】【turn1file11†L57-L69】【turn1file11†L71-L79】 |
Key Findings
MBIs improved global cognition and six accuracy-focused subdomains vs waitlist/no-treatment and vs active controls; latency/speed outcomes were mostly unchanged. 【turn1file0†L39-L47】【turn1file5†L23-L31】
Effects generally persisted at follow-up for global cognition (pre–follow-up). (Table 2; Figure 2). 【turn1file5†L57-L60】
Stronger benefits for people with elevated psychiatric symptoms; delivery face-to-face > self-guided when compared to active controls; some tailored MBIs outperformed standard protocols vs active controls (Table 2). 【turn1file1†L40-L54】【turn1file1†L8-L14】【turn1file1†L1-L6】
Numeric highlights (Hedges’ g; bold = p < .05 as reported):
Vs active controls (Table 2): Global cognition g = 0.208, Executive attention g = 0.192, WM accuracy g = 0.296, Inhibition accuracy g = 0.192, Shifting accuracy g = 0.200, Sustained attention accuracy g = 0.212, Intra-individual CoV g = 0.337, Subjective cognitive functioning g = 0.394. All significant. 【turn1file5†L23-L31】
Vs waitlist/no-treatment (Table S4/Fig S2): Global cognition g = 0.583, Executive attention g = 0.301, WM accuracy g = 0.326, Inhibition accuracy g = 0.643, Shifting accuracy g = 0.272, Sustained attention accuracy g = 0.367, Subjective cognition g = 0.257. All significant. 【turn1file9†L27-L59】
Follow-up (global cognition): g = 0.231 vs active controls (small), g = 0.808 vs waitlist (large). Both significant. (Figure 2). 【turn1file5†L57-L60】【turn1file9†L61-L64】
Null domains: No significant effects on EF latency indices, verbal fluency, processing speed, episodic memory, cognitive error. 【turn1file0†L45-L55】
Limitations Stated by Authors
Considerable heterogeneity in protocols/content; standardization is needed. (Table 2 domains show moderate–large heterogeneity). 【turn1file5†L17-L21】
Missing data concerns in a subset of trials; complete-case vs ITT choices matter. 【turn1file12†L19-L27】【turn1file5†L101-L105】
Could not isolate which specific MBI components drive effects. Not reported which exact techniques per effect. (Authors note need for dismantling/network meta-analyses.) 【turn1file6†L246-L256】
Demographic reporting gaps (e.g., ethnicity, SOGI) limit generalizability. (Tables S2–S3). 【turn1file9†L5-L11】
Critical Notes
Effect sizes are small vs active controls—meaningful but not magic; expect incremental gains, not dramatic jumps. (Table 2). 【turn1file5†L23-L31】
Accuracy gains without speed gains align with mindfulness’ non-pressured stance; if your role prizes speed, combine MBIs with skill-specific speed training. 【turn1file0†L45-L55】
Self-guided apps showed minimal advantage over face-to-face in waitlist comparisons (tiny difference); but face-to-face > self-guided when benchmarked against active programs—choose delivery mode based on alternatives available. 【turn1file12†L3-L7】【turn1file1†L8-L14】
Conclusive takeaway: MBIs reliably improve accuracy-based attention and executive functions (vs both waitlist and active controls), with effects that can persist for global cognition. 【turn1file9†L27-L34】【turn1file5†L23-L31】【turn1file5†L57-L60】
Paper Quality (High)
Robust meta-analysis of RCTs with rigorous stats; effects are modest but consistent and likely reliable.
| Criterion | Rating | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Randomisation & blinding | 🟢 High | RCT-only; 0% high risk for randomization; measurement bias concerns were low (9.59%) in active-control analyses. |
| Sample size & power | 🟢 High | 111 trials; n = 9,538 across 22 countries (Tables S2–S3). |
| Attrition / adherence | 🟡 Moderate | Some missing-data concerns in ~22% of studies; ITT vs complete-case differences noted. |
| Conflicts of interest | 🟡 Moderate | Authors declare none; COI across included trials not systematically detailed. |
Glossary
- Executive attention: Managing conflict between competing responses (e.g., focusing during distractions).
- Working memory (WM) accuracy: Correctly holding/updating information in mind.
- Inhibition accuracy: Successfully stopping or suppressing prepotent responses.
- Shifting accuracy: Switching between tasks or mental sets without errors.
- Sustained attention: Maintaining focus over time; often tracked by accuracy/consistency (intra-individual CoV).
- Latency indices/processing speed: How fast you respond (ms), not how accurate.
- Hedges’ g: Standardized effect size used in meta-analysis; ~0.2 small, 0.5 medium, 0.8 large (rule of thumb).
Suggested Reads
- Cásedas L., Pirruccio V., Vadillo M.A., & Lupiáñez J. (2020). Mindfulness 11(2): 411–424.
- Yakobi O., et al. (2021). Meta-analysis on MBIs in healthy adults.
- Whitfield G., et al. (2022). MBIs and cognition meta-analysis.