Research story · published
Mindfulness and Its Demographic and Behavioral Correlates Among University Students in Pakistan: A Cross-Sectional Study
Nearly one in three students belonged to the study’s lowest mindfulness group. Gender remained associated after adjustment, while social-media frequency did not.
01
Why this matters
Mindfulness is often discussed as if students simply have more or less of it. This study gives a more careful picture by testing the MAAS and grouping students by their observed scores. It supports further study and student support, but it does not show that social media or gender causes lower mindfulness.
02
Study snapshot
- Design
- Cross-sectional quantitative survey
- Sample
- 344
- Population
- Undergraduate and graduate students aged 18 to 28 years; mean age 21.76
- Setting
- Pakistani university students recruited online and in person during 2025
- Measures
- 15-item Mindful Attention Awareness Scale and demographic, academic, health, activity, phone-use, and social-media variables
- Analysis
- Cronbach alpha, K-means clustering, chi-square tests, one-way ANOVA, and multiple linear regression in SPSS 26
113 of 344 students belonged to the sample-derived low-mindfulness group.
03
Results, without the jargon
Most students were in the middle score group, while about one in three belonged to the lowest group. Women were more common in that group and averaged about five points lower after adjustment. Social-media frequency was associated with group membership in the simple comparison, but it was not an independent predictor after gender, academic year, and socioeconomic status were considered. The regression model explained only 4.2% of score variation, so most individual differences remain unexplained.
MAAS reliability
Strong internal consistency in this sample.
Source: PDF Table 2, page 5Low score group
113 students; mean MAAS 41.84, SD 5.55.
Source: PDF Table 4, page 7Middle score group
163 students; mean MAAS 55.94, SD 4.57.
Source: PDF Table 4, page 7High score group
68 students; mean MAAS 75.50, SD 7.12.
Source: PDF Table 4, page 7Gender and group membership
Women were overrepresented in the low score group.
Source: PDF page 8Adjusted gender coefficient
Women scored about five points lower; p = .001.
Source: PDF Table 6, page 9Variance explained
R squared 0.042. Most variation remained unexplained.
Source: PDF Table 6, page 9Social media after adjustment
Frequency was not a significant adjusted predictor.
Source: PDF Table 6, page 904
What this could mean
Universities could pilot broadly available attention and mindfulness support and evaluate outcomes. Digital-wellness education is reasonable to explore, but this study does not show that reducing social-media use increases mindfulness. Female students may warrant further study and inclusive support, but gender alone does not explain individual scores. Longitudinal or experimental work is needed.
05
Read this with the limitations
The cross-sectional design prevents causal inference. Self-report may create social-desirability bias. The Pakistani student sample limits generalizability. Named universities, cities, recruitment distribution, and sampling frame are absent. Low, medium, and high are data-driven groups, not clinical cutoffs. Social media was significant only in an unadjusted cluster comparison. The model explained just 4.2% of score variation. Stress, sleep, rumination, mental health, and academic demands were not directly modeled.
06
How I contributed
I contributed to the study through research planning, guidance of student collaborators, analytical thinking, interpretation of the findings, and manuscript development. I helped connect the statistical results with a clearer discussion of student wellbeing while supporting the team through the research and publication journey.
07
Explore and cite the paper
Nisar S, Khurshid A, Sahar I, Shahid B, Asghar T, Saeed R. Mindfulness and Its Demographic and Behavioral Correlates Among University Students in Pakistan: A Cross-Sectional Study. Multidisciplinary Surgical Research Annals. 2025;3(3):404-415. Published August 3, 2025.
This is a plain-language research summary, not personal medical advice. Interpret findings in the context of the design and limitations.