Goldberg · Mindfulness 2026 · observational cohort study and secondary trial analysis · n=26,780

Sitting and Active Meditation Practice: Utilization and Associations with Outcomes in Naturalistic and Clinical Trial Data.

Cited 0 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Non-randomized observational cohort and secondary trial analysis of self-selected practice modalities

PubMed 41809576 · doi:10.1007/s12671-026-02787-w · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Researchers analyzed data from public users of the Healthy Minds Program (HMP) meditation app (N = 26,532, Sample 1) and participants from a completed trial of the app (N = 248, Sample 2). They assessed the proportion of meditation sessions completed as "active" practices (meditating while completing daily activities) versus sitting practices. They evaluated associations between active practice proportion, participant demographics, baseline psychological distress, app utilization patterns, and longitudinal changes in psychological distress.

What was found

Active practices accounted for 38% of completed sessions in Sample 1 and 28% in Sample 2. Identifying as a woman or other gender was associated with a higher proportion of active practice in Sample 1, but not in Sample 2. App utilization patterns differed between cohorts: Sample 1 showed a positive quadratic association where participants who primarily used active or sitting practices (rather than a combination) had greater utilization, whereas Sample 2 showed the opposite (negative quadratic) pattern. Use of active practice was not associated with poorer clinical effects on distress. Specific numerical effect sizes, test statistics, and p-values were not reported in the abstract.

Why it matters

Incorporating meditation into daily physical activities provides an accessible alternative to stationary sitting practice and appears to achieve comparable reductions in psychological distress.

Limits

Practice modality was self-selected by users rather than experimentally randomized, introducing potential confounding. All analyses were secondary and not preregistered. Engagement findings conflicted between the naturalistic and trial samples, and the abstract omitted quantitative effect sizes and confidence intervals.

Cited by