Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35820989›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based mental health2022

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

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based mental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06122844 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility of Mindfulness-based Training for Teachers and Young Children for Social Emotional and Ethical Development (SEED)

TypeinterventionalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2023 to 2024Enrolled158ConditionsDevelopment, Child, Mindfulness, Mental Well-beingArmsSocial, Emotional, and Ethical Development (SEED) curriculum
NCT06210932 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Social, Emotional and Ethical Development Curriculum (SEED) Video Intervention on Preschoolers: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2023 to 2024Enrolled160ConditionsDevelopment, Child, MindfulnessArmsSocial, Emotional, and Ethical Development (SEED) curriculum videos
NCT06820619 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy of Mindfulness-based Training for Teachers and Young Children for Social Emotional and Ethical Development (SEED)-Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2024 to 2025Enrolled200ConditionsDevelopment, Child, Mindfulness, WellbeingArmsSocial, Emotional, and Ethical Development (SEED) curriculum
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mindfulness-Based Programmes for Work Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Systematic Review of the Adherence to Home-Practice Meditation Exercises in Patients with Chronic Pain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Low mood, worry and mind wandering in children.The British journal of developmental psychology · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Darren DunningMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Kate TudorDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lucy RadleyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nicola DalrympleDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Julia FunkMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Maris VainreMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9570-3726
Tamsin FordDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jesus Montero-MarinDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Willem KuykenDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8596-5252
Tim DalgleishMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK tim.dalgleish@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00030/5Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

questionMindfulness-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.

findingsSixty-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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Child & adolescent psychiatry

Identifiers

PMID35820989
PMCPMC9340039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.