Do mindfulness-based programmes improve the cognitive skills, behaviour and mental health of children and adolescents? An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Darren Dunning, Kate Tudor, Lucy Radley, Nicola Dalrymple, Julia Funk, Maris Vainre, Tamsin Ford, Jesus Montero-Marin, Willem Kuyken, Tim Dalgleish, Darren Dunning, Kate Tudor, Lucy Radley, Nicola Dalrymple, Julia Funk, Maris Vainre, Tamsin Ford, Jesus Montero-Marin, Willem Kuyken, Tim Dalgleish

Abstract

Question: Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs) are an increasingly popular approach to improving mental health in young people. Our previous meta-analysis suggested that MBPs show promising effectiveness, but highlighted a lack of high-quality, adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This updated meta-analysis assesses the-state-of the-art of MBPs for young people in light of new studies. It explores MBP's effectiveness in active vs passive controls; selective versus universal interventions; and studies that included follow-up.

Study selection and analysis: We searched for published and unpublished RCTs of MBPs with young people (<19 years) in PubMed Central, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, EThOS, EBSCO and Google Scholar. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, and standardised mean differences (Cohen's d) were calculated.

Findings: Sixty-six RCTs, involving 20 138 participants (9552 receiving an MBP and 10 586 controls), were identified. Compared with passive controls, MBPs were effective in improving anxiety/stress, attention, executive functioning, and negative and social behaviour (d from 0.12 to 0.35). Compared against active controls, MBPs were more effective in reducing anxiety/stress and improving mindfulness (d=0.11 and 0.24, respectively). In studies with a follow-up, there were no significant positive effects of MBPs. No consistent pattern favoured MBPs as a universal versus selective intervention.

Conclusions: The enthusiasm for MBPs in youth has arguably run ahead of the evidence. While MBPs show promising results for some outcomes, in general, the evidence is of low quality and inconclusive. We discuss a conceptual model and the theory-driven innovation required to realise the potential of MBPs in supporting youth mental health.

Keywords: Child & adolescent psychiatry.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: WK is the Director of the Oxford Mindfulness Centre and receives royalties for several books on mindfulness. JM-M is associated with the Oxford Mindfulness Centre.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of inclusion of studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias of included studies.

References

    1. Dunning DL, Griffiths K, Kuyken W, et al. . Research Review: the effects of mindfulness-based interventions on cognition and mental health in children and adolescents - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2019;60:244–58. 10.1111/jcpp.12980
    1. Kuyken W, Ball S, Crane C. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a universal school-based mindfulness training programme compared with normal school provision in reducing risk of mental health problems and promoting well-being in adolescence: results of the Myriad cluster randomised controlled trial
    1. Volanen S-M, Lassander M, Hankonen N, et al. . Healthy learning mind - effectiveness of a mindfulness program on mental health compared to a relaxation program and teaching as usual in schools: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. J Affect Disord 2020;260:660–9. 10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.087
    1. Lassander M, Hintsanen M, Suominen S, et al. . Effects of school-based mindfulness intervention on health-related quality of life: moderating effect of gender, grade, and independent practice in cluster randomized controlled trial. Qual Life Res 2021;30:3407–19. 10.1007/s11136-021-02868-4
    1. Crane RS, Brewer J, Feldman C, et al. . What defines mindfulness-based programs? the warp and the weft. Psychol Med 2017;47:990–9. 10.1017/S0033291716003317
    1. Cuijpers P, Li J, Hofmann SG, Andersson G, et al. . Self-reported versus clinician-rated symptoms of depression as outcome measures in psychotherapy research on depression: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2010;30:768–78. 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.001
    1. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. . Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. 10.1136/bmj.l4898
    1. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, et al. . Grade evidence to decision (ETD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: clinical practice guidelines. BMJ 2016;353:p. i2089. 10.1136/bmj.i2089
    1. Cohen J. The effect size. In: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 1988: 77–83.
    1. Klauer KJ. Handbuch kognitives training
    1. Morris SB. Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organ Res Methods 2008;11:364–86. 10.1177/1094428106291059
    1. Carlson KD, Schmidt FL. Impact of experimental design on effect size: findings from the research literature on training. J Appl Psychol 1999;84:851–62. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.851
    1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP. Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 2021.
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58. 10.1002/sim.1186
    1. Mlinarić A, Horvat M, Šupak Smolčić V, Smolčić upak. Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem Med 2017;27:447–52. 10.11613/BM.2017.030201
    1. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455–63. 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
    1. Tudor K, Maloney S, Raja A, et al. . Universal mindfulness training in schools for adolescents: a scoping review and conceptual model of Moderators, mediators, and implementation factors. Prev Sci 2022. doi:10.1007/s11121-022-01361-9. [Epub ahead of print: 10 Mar 2022].
    1. Weil LG, Fleming SM, Dumontheil I, et al. . The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. Conscious Cogn 2013;22:264–71. 10.1016/j.concog.2013.01.004
    1. Broderick PC, Metz S. Learning to breathe: a pilot trial of a mindfulness curriculum for adolescents. Adv Sch Ment Health Promot 2009;2:35–46. 10.1080/1754730X.2009.9715696
    1. Kabat-Zinn J. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 2003;10:144–56. 10.1093/clipsy.bpg016
    1. Teasdale JD, Segal ZV, Williams JM, et al. . Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. J Consult Clin Psychol 2000;68:615. 10.1037//0022-006x.68.4.615
    1. Montero-Marin J, Allwood M, Ball S, et al. . School-based mindfulness training in early adolescence: what works, for whom and how in the MYRIAD trial? Evid Based Ment Health 2022;25:117–24. 10.1136/ebmental-2022-300439

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa