I’m also pretty uninformed on the biomarkers aspect. Beyond what they say in the paper:
One reason why we do not find significant effects on biomarkers at conventional levels
may be power issues combined with relatively noisy measures. Another, related reason may be
the composition of our sample: high levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines have been found for major depression; respondents in our sample, however, report, on average, only mild depressive
symptomatology, pre-treatment. In fact, we find that only eight out of 133 respondents (about
6%) report strong depressive symptomatology, as indicated by PHQ-9 scores of fifteen or
higher. Moreover, even amongst these, only about a third show associated elevated
inflammation (Wium-Andersen and Nielsen, 2013). For cortisol, individual differences and
timing of measurement matter; it has been found to be a rather short-term measure for stress
(Miller et al., 2007).
I found Table 5 here gives a bit more context on the correlation between these biomarkers and different outcomes.
Impacts on subjective wellbeing, mental health, and pro-sociality are large: the course
increases life satisfaction on a zero-to-ten scale by about one point, more than being partnered
as opposed to being single (+0.6) or being employed as opposed to being unemployed (+0.7)
(Clark et al., 2018). It is more than double the effect of ENHANCE, a 12-week course focusing
primarily on positive habits, skills, and attitudes, which is probably the most comparable
intervention (Kushlev et al., 2017). 28 However, the authors are able to track outcomes over a
longer period of time, up to six months post-treatment. Finally, the effect on life satisfaction is
somewhat larger than effects found in trials by the UK Big Lottery Fund, which funded a wide
range of wellbeing programmes (fourteen portfolios, each consisting of three to 34 actual trials)
from 2008 to 2015 at a volume of £200 million. Trials typically included community-based
activities such as horticultural activities, cooking lessons, or sports events. As a conservative
estimate, they increased life satisfaction on a zero-to-ten scale by, on average, 0.5 points for six
months post-treatment (New Economics Foundation-Centre for Local Economic Strategies,
2013). Different from our intervention, however, these trials all targeted specific groups with
mental health needs, including overweight adults, families with young children, or people with
substance use disorders.
Seems interesting! I have some newbie questions:
Assuming that these results hold, do you know how good it’s outcomes are relative to similar interventions (say MBSR or group therapy)?
They also seem to be worried about the meaning of having no change in biomarkers. How important is that?
I’m also pretty uninformed on the biomarkers aspect. Beyond what they say in the paper:
I found Table 5 here gives a bit more context on the correlation between these biomarkers and different outcomes.
As far as comparisons, they say: