Nora Tuts, Céline R. Gillebert and Caroline van Heugten searched Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL and APA PsycINFO for English-language, peer-reviewed studies describing mindfulness-based interventions in adults with acquired brain injury. They extracted data on participant characteristics, recruitment criteria, intervention aims and contents, and adaptations. Thirty-four unique studies met the inclusion criteria. As a scoping review, the analysis was designed to describe what was delivered, to whom and how; it did not provide a pooled estimate of treatment effectiveness. The review was not preregistered.

Study populations were skewed toward stroke and traumatic brain injury, with most participants in the chronic phase of acquired brain injury, defined in the review as more than six months after injury. Other acquired brain injury groups and people in earlier recovery phases were represented less often in the included evidence. Recruitment criteria also varied substantially between studies. The review therefore found that the same broad label of mindfulness-based intervention did not necessarily refer to a consistent population, even when study programs appeared otherwise similar.

Most interventions were described as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, or as based on that approach, but their components were highly diverse. Differences extended beyond the program name to the aims, exercises and delivery of mindfulness practices. Most studies mentioned delivery-based or content-based adaptations intended for the acquired brain injury population. However, the added value of these adaptations was typically not evaluated, and their use did not translate into more inclusive recruitment. In other words, studies frequently reported modifying programs for an acquired brain injury population without showing that those modifications expanded access to people who might otherwise have been excluded.

The authors identified reporting gaps in three areas: how participants were recruited, what the interventions actually contained and how programs were adapted. They argued that clearer distinctions and more detailed reporting could help separate programs that are currently conflated, support replication and streamline efforts to make mindfulness-based interventions more accessible to people living with the consequences of acquired brain injury. These conclusions concern the organization and transparency of the research literature, not proof that mindfulness is effective, that any particular adaptation is preferable, or that one program is superior to another. The review also leaves unanswered whether the observed variations affect treatment outcomes, because that question was outside the review’s stated aims and the included evidence did not yield a pooled effectiveness assessment.

Subject of Research: Scope and reporting of mindfulness-based interventions for adults with acquired brain injury

Article Title: A Scoping Review of Mindfulness-Based Interventions After Acquired Brain Injury: What Is Delivered, to Whom, and How?

Article References: Tuts, N., Gillebert, C. R., & van Heugten, C. (2026). A Scoping Review of Mindfulness-Based Interventions After Acquired Brain Injury: What Is Delivered, to Whom, and How?. Mindfulness. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-026-03003-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s12671-026-03003-5

Keywords: acquired brain injury, mindfulness, mindfulness-based stress reduction, stroke, traumatic brain injury, scoping review, intervention adaptations, participant recruitment, research transparency, Scoping, Review, Mindfulness-Based