An Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of School-Based Mindfulness Based Interventions (MBIs)
- Forfatter(e)
- Grennan, S., O'Dowd, A., Twomey, C., O'Connor, M., Carr, A.
- År
- 2026
- Tidsskrift
- Mindfulness
- Sider
- 20
- Kategori(er)
- Angst og engstelighet (inkl. både vansker og lidelse) Depresjon og nedstemthet (inkl. både vansker og lidelse) Livskvalitet og trivsel
- Tiltakstype(r)
- MindfulnessSkole/barnehagebaserte tiltak
- Abstract
Objectives
This umbrella review synthesised evidence from meta-analyses of school-based mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) to evaluate effects on wellbeing, mindfulness, depression and anxiety in children and adolescents.
Method
Searches were conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC and Cochrane databases, with the timeframe for the search being 2000 to end 2024. Eligibility criteria included controlled trials of school-based MBIs for children and adolescents aged 5-18 years, and peer-reviewed publication. Data extraction followed PRISMA Guidelines, with AMSTAR-2 and GRADE used to measure quality. Pooled effect sizes were analysed using random-effects models, and meta-regression analyses for moderator effects. The review protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO.
Results
Six meta-analyses, covering a total of 110 primary studies and 28,910 participants, met inclusion criteria. MBIs showed small but statistically significant effects for wellbeing (g = 0.13), mindfulness (g = 0.11) and anxiety (g = 0.11), but no effect for depression (g = 0.05). Quality of included reviews ranged from critically low to moderate (AMSTAR-2). GRADE assessments indicated very low certainty of evidence across all outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.
Conclusions
School-based MBIs are associated with very small improvements in wellbeing, mindfulness and anxiety, but not depression, for children and adolescents in the general school population. Results were limited by the small number of meta-analyses included in the umbrella review (k = 6), variation in methodological quality of primary studies and lack of follow-up data in some meta-analyses. Thus, the evidence is limited and inconsistent, with a need for further high-quality RCTs in this field.PreregistrationThis review was pre-registered with PROSPERO (CRD42025636892).