Darren Dunning, Kate Tudor, Lucy Radley, Nicola Dalrymple, Julia Funk, Maris Vainre, Tamsin Ford, Jesus Montero-Marin, Willem Kuyken, Tim Dalgleish
{"title":"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。","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We searched for published and unpublished RCTs of MBPs with young people (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":"{\"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}","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}
Do mindfulness-based programmes improve the cognitive skills, behaviour and mental health of children and adolescents? An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
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.
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.