ArticleChild and adolescent psychiatry and mental health2026
Follow-up effects of mindfulness-based interventions on anxiety in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnxiety is one of the most prevalent mental health problems in adolescence, and its onset often coincides with the secondary school years. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have shown short-term benefits for reducing anxiety in young people, but the durability of these benefits after treatment remains uncertain. To inform clinical and school-based practice, a quantitative synthesis focused specifically on follow-up effects is needed.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating MBIs in adolescents aged 10-19 years and reporting anxiety outcomes at follow-up assessments conducted at least 3 months after the intervention. The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251234254). Major databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus and CNKI) were searched from inception to November 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Standardized mean differences (SMDs; Hedges' g) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated under a random-effects model. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted by age group (10-14 vs. 15-19 years), intervention type (MBSR/MBCT vs. mindfulness-based stress prevention, MBSP), and follow-up interval (3-6 vs. ≥6 months). Univariable meta-regression explored the impact of mean age and total intervention duration on effect sizes. Certainty of evidence for key outcomes was rated using GRADE.
resultsEleven randomized controlled trials (n = 9,856 adolescents) were included. Overall, MBIs were associated with a modest reduction in anxiety symptoms at follow-up assessments ≥ 3 months after treatment (SMD = - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.44 to - 0.16; I² = 79%). Subgroup analyses indicated a moderate effect at 3-6 months (SMD = - 0.40, 95% CI - 0.56 to - 0.25; I² = 52%) but a very small effect at ≥ 6 months (SMD = - 0.09, 95% CI - 0.14 to - 0.05; I² = 0%), with a significant difference between subgroups (p < 0.001).
conclusionsMBIs may confer a modest follow-up benefit on adolescent anxiety, driven mainly by outcomes measured at 3-6 months. Evidence at ≥ 6 months is limited and of low certainty, and does not support a firm conclusion regarding maintenance of effects. Future trials should test whether maintenance-focused components, such as booster sessions or ongoing practice support, improve durability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.