Do mindfulness-based programmes improve the cognitive skills, behaviour and mental health of children and adolescents? An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Do mindfulness-based programmes improve the cognitive skills, behaviour and mental health of children and adolescents? An updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/ebmental-2022-300464
复制
发表时间：
2022-07-12
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
正念方案（MBPs）是一种日益流行的改善年轻人心理健康的方法。我们之前的荟萃分析表明，MBPs显示出有希望的有效性，但强调缺乏高质量、充分支持的随机对照试验（rct）。这项最新的荟萃分析根据新的研究评估了年轻人MBPs的最新水平。探讨了MBP在主动和被动控制中的有效性；选择性干预与普遍干预；包括随访的研究。我们在PubMed Central、PsycINFO、Web of Science、EMBASE、ICTRP、ClinicalTrials.gov、EThOS、EBSCO和谷歌Scholar中检索了已发表和未发表的年轻人（<19岁）MBPs的随机对照试验。进行随机效应荟萃分析，并计算标准化平均差异（Cohen’s d）。共纳入66项随机对照试验，涉及20138名受试者（9552名接受MBP治疗，10586名对照）。与被动对照相比，MBPs在改善焦虑/压力、注意力、执行功能、消极和社会行为方面有效（d从0.12到0.35）。与主动对照组相比，MBPs在减少焦虑/压力和提高正念方面更有效（d分别=0.11和0.24）。在随访的研究中，MBPs没有显著的积极作用。没有一致的模式支持MBPs作为普遍干预与选择性干预。年轻人对MBPs的热情可以说是超前于证据。虽然MBPs对某些结果显示出有希望的结果，但总体而言，证据质量低且不确定。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。
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. We searched for published and unpublished RCTs of MBPs with young people (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. 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Weil LG;Fleming SM;Dumontheil I;Kilford EJ;Weil RS;Rees G;Dolan RJ;Blakemore SJ
通讯作者：
Blakemore SJ
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Duval, S;Tweedie, R
通讯作者：
Tweedie, R
DOI：
10.1080/1754730x.2009.9715696
发表时间：
2009-01-01
期刊：
ADVANCES IN SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH PROMOTION
影响因子：
--
作者：
Broderick, Patricia C.;Metz, Stacie
通讯作者：
Metz, Stacie
DOI：
10.4084/mjhid.2010.005
发表时间：
2010-04-20
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Khalafallah A;Maiwald M;Cox A;Burns D;Bates G;Hannan T;Seaton D;Fernandopulle B;Meagher D;Brain T
通讯作者：
Brain T
影响因子：
2
作者：
Higgins, JPT;Thompson, SG
通讯作者：
Thompson, SG