I'll bite!....

This actually happens a lot....non-scientifically trained writers writing on scientific topics and not really checking with science advisers before publishing. Thus, the author of the NYT article, Ruth Whippman, offers on her website: "Before becoming a full time writer, Ruth was a producer and director at the BBC making numerous documentaries and current affairs shows for BBC television including working on several BAFTA winning series. - See more at:
http://www.ruthwhippman.com/#the_author"
She uses a study by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at the US Dept. of Health and Human Services as a 'prop' for the NYT op-ed, without, in my mind, reading much into the study's findings in any depth. An executive summary of the study can be found here:
https://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/375/1830/meditation-executive-140106.pdfWhat is worth noting is that the study is a "meta-analysis"....it is a review of already-published (peer reviewed) scientific literature, rather than an independent study of those meditating and those not. Secondly,....and for me, crucially.....the authors of this literature review study state
"The literature search identified 17,801 unique citations.
During the title-and-abstract screening, we excluded
16,177 citations. During the article screening, we excluded
1,447 citations. During KQ applicability screening, we
excluded an additional 136 articles that did not meet one
or more of the inclusion criteria. We included 41 articles in
the review.31-71
Most trials were short term, but they ranged
from 4 weeks
to 9 years in duration. Since the amount of training and
practice in any meditation program may affect its results,
we collected this information and found a fair range in the
quality of information. Not all trials reported on amount
of training and home practice recommended. MBSR
programs typically provided 20–27.5 hours of training
over 8 weeks. The mindfulness meditation trials typically
provided about half this amount. TM trials provided
16–39 hours over 3–12 months, while other mantra
meditation programs provided about half this amount. "
The study authors did not state how many of the experimental investigations were 4 weeks versus several years....so the bulk of the data may have been collected on studies done within 1 - 2 years at the most. Just an opinion, but I don't feel that is long enough time to evaluate the positive effects of a meditative practice.
Under the "Limitations of the Study" section, the authors conclude
"We were limited in our ability to determine the overall
applicability of the body of evidence to the broad
population of patients who could benefit from mindfulness
meditation because the studies varied so much in many
ways other than just the specific targeted population;
that
is, they also varied in characteristics of the intervention,
comparator, outcomes, timing, and setting. Also, the
studies generally did not provide enough information to be
able to determine whether the effectiveness of mindfulness
meditation varied by race, ethnicity, or education."
So irrespective of the criteria used to determine "increased wellness", the fuzziness within each experimental trial combined to create an even greater fuzziness in the interpretation and comparability, broadly, of the results. Again, in my opinion, the study is simply inconclusive based on insufficient data and experimental design.
There could be more to address in the author's approach within the NYT article alone, but wanted to address (mis?)-use of a scientific study to make the point.