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

IF 6.6 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Darren Dunning, Kate Tudor, Lucy Radley, Nicola Dalrymple, Julia Funk, Maris Vainre, Tamsin Ford, Jesus Montero-Marin, Willem Kuyken, Tim Dalgleish
{"title":"Do mindfulness-based programmes improve the cognitive skills, behaviour and mental health of children and adolescents? An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.","authors":"Darren Dunning, Kate Tudor, Lucy Radley, Nicola Dalrymple, Julia Funk, Maris Vainre, Tamsin Ford, Jesus Montero-Marin, Willem Kuyken, Tim Dalgleish","doi":"10.1136/ebmental-2022-300464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Question: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Study selection and analysis: </strong>We searched for published and unpublished RCTs of MBPs with young people (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.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12233,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Mental Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9340039/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2022-300464","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

正念计划能改善儿童和青少年的认知技能、行为和心理健康吗?随机对照试验的最新荟萃分析。
问题以正念为基础的项目(MBPs)是一种日益流行的改善青少年心理健康的方法。我们之前的荟萃分析表明,正念疗法显示出了良好的效果,但同时也强调缺乏高质量、有充分证据的随机对照试验(RCT)。本最新荟萃分析根据新的研究评估了针对年轻人的甲基溴治疗方法的最新进展。它探讨了MBP在主动控制与被动控制、选择性干预与普遍性干预以及包括随访的研究中的有效性:我们搜索了已发表和未发表的针对青少年的甲基溴治疗方法的研究性临床试验(结果:66 项研究性临床试验,其中包括一项针对青少年的甲基溴治疗方法):共确定了 66 项 RCT,涉及 20 138 名参与者(9552 人接受了 MBP,10 586 人接受了对照)。与被动对照组相比,多溴联苯醚能有效改善焦虑/压力、注意力、执行功能以及消极和社交行为(d 从 0.12 到 0.35)。与主动对照组相比,多溴联苯醚能更有效地减轻焦虑/压力和改善正念(d 分别为 0.11 和 0.24)。在有随访的研究中,MBPs 没有显著的积极效果。在普遍干预与选择性干预之间,没有一致的模式更倾向于MBPs:可以说,人们对青少年多溴联苯醚的热情已经超过了证据。虽然多学科综合疗法在某些结果上显示出良好的效果,但总的来说,证据的质量不高,也没有定论。我们讨论了一个概念模型和理论驱动的创新,以实现 MBPs 在支持青少年心理健康方面的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
18.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Mental Health alerts clinicians to important advances in treatment, diagnosis, aetiology, prognosis, continuing education, economic evaluation and qualitative research in mental health. Published by the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the BMJ Publishing Group the journal surveys a wide range of international medical journals applying strict criteria for the quality and validity of research. Clinicians assess the relevance of the best studies and the key details of these essential studies are presented in a succinct, informative abstract with an expert commentary on its clinical application.Evidence-Based Mental Health is a multidisciplinary, quarterly publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信