Skip to content

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

Evidence-Based Mental Health July 12, 2022 DOI: 10.1136/ebmental-2022-300464 (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Meta-analysis Randomized Peer reviewed
Sample size 20,138
Population Young people under 19 years
Intervention Mindfulness-based programmes (MBPs)
Topics Meditation
Key findings Across 66 randomized trials (20,138 participants), mindfulness-based programmes showed small benefits versus passive controls for anxiety/stress, attention, executive functioning, and negative and social behaviour (d 0.12 to 0.35), and small benefits versus active controls for anxiety/stress and mindfulness (d=0.11 and 0.24). No significant positive effects appeared in studies with follow-up, and no consistent pattern favoured universal over selective interventions. The authors conclude the evidence is of low quality and inconclusive.

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 Study selection and analysis: We searched for published and unpublished RCTs of MBPs with young people (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.

Comparable studies

Other systematic reviews and meta-analyses on meditation, most cited first.

Study Year Design Participants
Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being Diverse adult clinical populations 2014 Meta-analysis n = 3,515
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Stress Management in Healthy People: A Review and Meta-Analysis Healthy subjects 2009 Systematic review and meta-analysis
The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Nonclinical groups of adult meditators 2012 Meta-analysis n = 163
Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Prevention of Depressive Relapse Adults with recurrent depression in full or partial remission 2016 Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials n = 1,258
Mindfulness‐Based Stress Reduction and Mindfulness‐Based Cognitive Therapy – a systematic review of randomized controlled trials 2011 Systematic review

Citations in the library

Cited by 51

and 46 more in the library

Cites 4

Explore topics