Lotus Therapy
Reviewed By
Rating
Lotus Therapy
Our Review Summary
This is a well-balanced report providing the reader with information on a new application of an old practice, i.e. mindfulness meditation for a variety of indications (mainly psychiatric). There is good information on this relatively new trend in medicine, and an appropriate tempering of any over-enthusiam for the practice. The journalist should be commended for interviewing a range of mindfulness experts, clinicians and patients, as these perspectives enriched the story.
The story does an excellent job balancing comments from proponents of mindfulness therapies with summaries of the evidence of this practice. The story also discusses caveats that the practice may be useful as part of an integrative treatment plan, but evidence suggests it is not a panacea for depression or anxiety, and it should be used with caution (or not at all) with some patients.
The story notes that mindfulness training in psychotherapy and for the management of chronic conditions is not standardized; thus, practitioners may have different interpretations of the practice in the clinical setting. The article does a great job explaining elements of the practice and listing resources (in the form of books, experts, training centers/trials and home-based practices). Readers could practice mindfulness meditation or learn more about related practices on their own based on information presented in the article.
Criteria
Satisfactory
Cost of treatment is not mentioned, but the story includes an excellent sidebar noting additional (free or low-cost) forms of mindfullness therapies and their demonstrated benefit to date. The story also adequately describes the practice and provides resources for personal practice. It would still have been helpful to hear a range of costs for therapy (and typical number of sessions for the patient to master the technique) for a common problem, such as anxiety disorder.
Satisfactory
The story notes the evidence of potential benefit for some patients, and a lack of evidence for use of mindfulness mediation with certain populations. However, benefit from psychotherapy is difficult to quantify as endpoints are not always standardized.
Satisfactory
The story alludes to the harms of mindfulness mediation for some patients who have had fewer than 3 episodes of depression (according to one study). The story also notes the general harms of a new practice becoming a fad when there are few standardized training programs, and it has not been studied long enough for all conditions for which it is currently being promoted.
Satisfactory
The story synthesizes evidence from several studies of mindfulness in mental health treatment and for the management of menopausal symptoms and chronic pain. The story appropriately pairs the claims of mindfulness experts/researchers with available evidence from clinical studies. The writer did a particularly nice job exploring the strength of the evidence for this type of treatment. The story notes that the positive role of mindfulness meditation in patients with depression and anxiety is borne out in some studies, but not all.
Satisfactory
The story does not engage in disease mongering, but attempts to provide balanced information about the growing use of mindfulness meditation in psychotherapy and management of chronic pain and stress-related conditions.
Satisfactory
The story does an excellent job balancing comments from several leading proponents of mindfulness therapies with summaries of the evidence of this practice in clinical trials. The story discusses caveats that the practice may be useful as part of an integrative treatment plan; however, evidence suggests it is not a panacea for depression or anxiety, and it should be used with caution (or not at all) with some patients. The journalist should be commended for the range of mindfulness experts, clinicians and patients interviewed in the article. This is a well-balanced report providing the reader with good information on a trend in medicine, but appropriately tempering over-enthusiam for the practice with available evidence.
Satisfactory
The story does an excellent job describing the practice of mindfulness mediation, as well as the utility and purpose of mindfulness therapies in a clinical setting. The notes that mindfulness is typically compared with traditional cognitive therapy, another treatment option. The sidebar listing meditative therapies and evidence of their relative benefit is an excellent addition to the article.
Satisfactory
The story notes that mindfulness training in psychotherapy and for the management of chronic conditions is not standardized; thus, practicioners may have different interpretations of the practice in the clinical setting. The story notes that practitioners who use elements of mindfulness meditation and related therapies may do so with different types of patients and for different conditions; there is not yet agreement or clear evidence for which patients are most helped by mindfulness mediation. The article does a good job of explaining elements of the practice and listing resources (in the form of books, experts, clinical training centers and accessible home-based practices). Readers could practice or learn more about mindfulness mediation on their own based on information presented in the article.
Satisfactory
The story provides an historical perspective of mindfulness practices and discusses how the practice was popularized by Western practitioners. The story notes that incorporating mindfulness meditation or elements of the practice into psychotherapy has become more popular, but the value of this practice still needs to be studied, especially with more vulnerable patients.
Satisfactory
The story does not rely on a press release and there is a great deal of independent reporting.
Total Score: 10 of 10 Satisfactory
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like