Search

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that mindfulness training (MT) appears effective at improving mental health in young people. MT is proposed to work through improving executive control in affectively laden contexts. However, it is unclear whether MT improves such control in young people. MT appears to mitigate mental health difficulties during periods of stress, but any mitigating effects against COVID-related difficulties remain unexamined. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether MT (intervention) versus psychoeducation (Psy-Ed; control), implemented in after-school classes: (1) Improves affective executive control; and/or (2) Mitigates negative mental health impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted (Registration: https://osf.io/d6y9q/; Funding: Wellcome (WT104908/Z/14/Z, WT107496/Z/15/Z)). 460 students aged 11-16 years were recruited and randomised 1:1 to either MT (N=235) or Psy-Ed (N=225) and assessed preintervention and postintervention on experimental tasks and self-report inventories of affective executive control. The RCT was then extended to evaluate protective functions of MT on mental health assessed after the first UK COVID-19 lockdown. FINDINGS: Results provided no evidence that the version of MT used here improved affective executive control after training or mitigated negative consequences on mental health of the COVID-19 pandemic relative to Psy-Ed. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that MT improves affective control or downstream mental health of young people during stressful periods. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: We need to identify interventions that can enhance affective control and thereby young people's mental health.

BackgroundEducation is broader than academic teaching. It includes teaching students social–emotional skills both directly and indirectly through a positive school climate.ObjectiveTo evaluate if a universal school-based mindfulness training (SBMT) enhances teacher mental health and school climate.MethodsThe My Resilience in Adolescence parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial (registration: ISRCTN86619085; funding: Wellcome Trust (WT104908/Z/14/Z, WT107496/Z/15/Z)) recruited 85 schools (679 teachers) delivering social and emotional teaching across the UK. Schools (clusters) were randomised 1:1 to either continue this provision (teaching as usual (TAU)) or include universal SBMT. Data on teacher mental health and school climate were collected at prerandomisation, postpersonal mindfulness and SBMT teacher training, after delivering SBMT to students, and at 1-year follow-up.FindingSchools were recruited in academic years 2016/2017 and 2017/2018. Primary analysis (SBMT: 43 schools/362 teachers; TAU: 41 schools/310 teachers) showed that after delivering SBMT to students, SBMT versus TAU enhanced teachers’ mental health (burnout) and school climate. Adjusted standardised mean differences (SBMT minus TAU) were: exhaustion (−0.22; 95% CI −0.38 to −0.05); personal accomplishment (−0.21; −0.41, −0.02); school leadership (0.24; 0.04, 0.44); and respectful climate (0.26; 0.06, 0.47). Effects on burnout were not significant at 1-year follow-up. Effects on school climate were maintained only for respectful climate. No SBMT-related serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionsSBMT supports short-term changes in teacher burnout and school climate. Further work is required to explore how best to sustain improvements.Clinical implicationsSBMT has limited effects on teachers’ mental and school climate. Innovative approaches to support and preserve teachers’ mental health and school climate are needed.

There is evidence that universal school-based mindfulness training (SBMT) can have positive effects for young people. However, it is unknown who benefits most from such training, how training exerts effects, and how implementation impacts effects. This study aimed to provide an overview of the evidence on the mediators, moderators, and implementation factors of SBMT, and propose a conceptual model that can be used both to summarize the evidence and provide a framework for future research. A scoping review was performed, and six databases and grey literature were searched. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select relevant material. Quantitative and qualitative information was extracted from eligible articles and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search produced 5479 articles, of which 31 were eligible and included in the review. Eleven studies assessed moderators of SBMT on pupil outcomes, with mixed findings for all variables tested. Five studies examined the mediating effect of specific variables on pupil outcomes, with evidence that increases in mindfulness skills and decreases in cognitive reactivity and self-criticism post-intervention are related to better pupil outcomes at follow-up. Twenty-five studies assessed implementation factors. We discuss key methodological shortcomings of included studies and integrate our findings with existing implementation frameworks to propose a conceptual model. Widespread interest in universal SBMT has led to increased research over recent years, exploring who SBMT works for and how it might work, but the current evidence is limited. We make recommendations for future research and provide a conceptual model to guide theory-led developments.

BACKGROUND: Preventing mental health problems in early adolescence is a priority. School-based mindfulness training (SBMT) is an approach with mixed evidence. OBJECTIVES: To explore for whom SBMT does/does not work and what influences outcomes. METHODS: The My Resilience in Adolescence was a parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial (K=84 secondary schools; n=8376 students, age: 11-13) recruiting schools that provided standard social-emotional learning. Schools were randomised 1:1 to continue this provision (control/teaching as usual (TAU)), and/or to offer SBMT ('.b' (intervention)). Risk of depression, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being were measured at baseline, preintervention, post intervention and 1 year follow-up. Hypothesised moderators, implementation factors and mediators were analysed using mixed effects linear regressions, instrumental variable methods and path analysis. FINDINGS: SBMT versus TAU resulted in worse scores on risk of depression and well-being in students at risk of mental health problems both at post intervention and 1-year follow-up, but differences were small and not clinically relevant. Higher dose and reach were associated with worse social-emotional-behavioural functioning at postintervention. No implementation factors were associated with outcomes at 1-year follow-up. Pregains-postgains in mindfulness skills and executive function predicted better outcomes at 1-year follow-up, but the SBMT was unsuccessful to teach these skills with clinical relevance.SBMT as delivered in this trial is not indicated as a universal intervention. Moreover, it may be contraindicated for students with existing/emerging mental health symptoms. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Universal SBMT is not recommended in this format in early adolescence. Future research should explore social-emotional learning programmes adapted to the unique needs of young people.

INTRODUCTION: Decentering describes the ability to voluntarily adopt an objective self-perspective from which to notice internal, typically distressing, stressors (eg, difficult thoughts, memories and feelings). The reinforcement of this skill may be an active ingredient through which different psychological interventions accrue reductions in anxiety and/or depression. However, it is unclear if decentering can be selectively trained at a young age and if this might reduce psychological distress. The aim of the current trial is to address this research gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adolescents, recruited from schools in the UK and Ireland (n=57 per group, age range=16-19 years), will be randomised to complete 5 weeks of decentering training, or an active control group that will take part in a combination of light physical exercise and cognitive training. The coprimary training outcomes include a self-reported decentering inventory (ie, the Experiences Questionnaire) and the momentary use of decentering in response to psychological stressors, using experience sampling. The secondary mental health outcomes will include self-reported inventories of depression and anxiety symptoms, as well as psychological well-being. Initial statistical analysis will use between-group analysis of covariance to estimate the effect of training condition on self-rated inventories, adjusted for baseline scores. Additionally, experience sampling data will be examined using hierarchical linear models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee, University of Cambridge (PRE.2019.109). Findings will be disseminated through typical academic routes including poster/paper presentations at (inter)national conferences, academic institutes and through publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14329613.

Mindfulness training (MT) is considered appropriate for school teachers and enhances well-being. Most research has investigated the efficacy of instructor-led MT. However, little is known about the benefits of using self-taught formats, nor what the key mechanisms of change are that contribute to enhanced teacher well-being. This study compared instructor-led and self-taught MT based on a book (Williams & Penman, 2011) in a sample of secondary school teachers. We assessed expectancy, the degree to which participants believed the intervention was effective, their program engagement, well-being and psychological distress, and evaluated whether mindfulness and self-compassion skills acted as mediators of outcomes. In total, 206 teachers from 43 schools were randomized by school to an instructor-led or self-taught course—77% female, mean age 39 years (SD = 9.0). Both MT formats showed similar rates of participant expectancy and engagement, but the instructor-led arm was perceived as more credible. Using linear mixed-effects models, we found the self-taught arm showed significant pre-post improvements in self-compassion and well-being, while the instructor-led arm showed such improvements in mindfulness, self-compassion, well-being, perceived stress, anxiety, depression, and burnout. Changes over time significantly differed between the groups in all these outcomes, favoring the instructor-led arm. The instructor-led arm, compared with the self-taught, indirectly improved teacher outcomes by enhancing mindfulness and self-compassion as mediating factors. Mindfulness practice frequency had indirect effects on teacher outcomes through mindfulness in both self-taught and instructor-led arms. Our results suggest both formats are considered reasonable, but the instructor-led is more effective than the self-taught. Trial registration: ISRCTN18013311., Educational Impact and Implications Statement Mindfulness training enhances teachers’ well-being. This study compared two different mindfulness training formats with a sample of 206 secondary school teachers using an experimental design. Results suggested that teachers’ well-being was increased in both formats of delivery and both generated similar expectancy and engagement with the mindfulness practice; but the instructor-led format appeared to be more credible and effective and was also able to reduce teachers’ stress, anxiety, depressive symptomatology, and burnout. In contrast, the self-taught program might be useful for those teachers who cannot access or commit to an instructor-led program, provided they engage with mindfulness practice. This study suggests two forms for teachers to learn mindfulness, instructor-led and self-taught, as a way to support well-being, each with its own advantages.

BackgroundSystematic reviews suggest school-based mindfulness training (SBMT) shows promise in promoting student mental health.ObjectiveThe My Resilience in Adolescence (MYRIAD) Trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SBMT compared with teaching-as-usual (TAU).MethodsMYRIAD was a parallel group, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Eighty-five eligible schools consented and were randomised 1:1 to TAU (43 schools, 4232 students) or SBMT (42 schools, 4144 students), stratified by school size, quality, type, deprivation and region. Schools and students (mean (SD); age range=12.2 (0.6); 11–14 years) were broadly UK population-representative. Forty-three schools (n=3678 pupils; 86.9%) delivering SBMT, and 41 schools (n=3572; 86.2%) delivering TAU, provided primary end-point data. SBMT comprised 10 lessons of psychoeducation and mindfulness practices. TAU comprised standard social-emotional teaching. Participant-level risk for depression, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being at 1 year follow-up were the co-primary outcomes. Secondary and economic outcomes were included.FindingsAnalysis of 84 schools (n=8376 participants) found no evidence that SBMT was superior to TAU at 1 year. Standardised mean differences (intervention minus control) were: 0.005 (95% CI −0.05 to 0.06) for risk for depression; 0.02 (−0.02 to 0.07) for social-emotional-behavioural functioning; and 0.02 (−0.03 to 0.07) for well-being. SBMT had a high probability of cost-effectiveness (83%) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year. No intervention-related adverse events were observed.ConclusionsFindings do not support the superiority of SBMT over TAU in promoting mental health in adolescence.Clinical implicationsThere is need to ask what works, for whom and how, as well as considering key contextual and implementation factors.Trial registrationCurrent controlled trials ISRCTN86619085. This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (WT104908/Z/14/Z and WT107496/Z/15/Z).

Background MYRIAD (My Resilience in Adolescence) is a superiority, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial designed to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training (MT) programme, compared with normal social and emotional learning (SEL) school provision to enhance mental health, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being in adolescence. The original trial protocol was published in Trials (accessible at 10.1186/s13063-017-1917-4). This included recruitment in two cohorts, enabling the learning from the smaller first cohort to be incorporated in the second cohort. Here we describe final amendments to the study protocol and discuss their underlying rationale. Methods Four major changes were introduced into the study protocol: (1) there were changes in eligibility criteria, including a clearer operational definition to assess the degree of SEL implementation in schools, and also new criteria to avoid experimental contamination; (2) the number of schools and pupils that had to be recruited was increased based on what we learned in the first cohort; (3) some changes were made to the secondary outcome measures to improve their validity and ability to measure constructs of interest and to reduce the burden on school staff; and (4) the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) pandemic both influences and makes it difficult to interpret the 2-year follow-up primary endpoint results, so we changed our primary endpoint to 1-year follow-up. Discussion These changes to the study protocol were approved by the Trial Management Group, Trial Steering Committee and Data and Ethics Monitoring Committees and improved the enrolment of participants and quality of measures. Furthermore, the change in the primary endpoint will give a more reliable answer to our primary question because it was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in both cohort 1 and cohort 2. Nevertheless, the longer 2-year follow-up data will still be acquired, although this time-point will be now framed as a second major investigation to answer some new important questions presented by the combination of the pandemic and our study design. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials ISRCTN86619085. Registered on 3 June 2016.

Background Mindfulness-based approaches for adults are effective at enhancing mental health, but few controlled trials have evaluated their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness for young people. The primary aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training (MT) programme to enhance mental health, wellbeing and social-emotional behavioural functioning in adolescence. Methods/design To address this aim, the design will be a superiority, cluster randomised controlled, parallel-group trial in which schools offering social and emotional provision in line with good practice (Formby et al., Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) Education: A mapping study of the prevalent models of delivery and their effectiveness, 2010; OFSTED, Not Yet Good Enough: Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education in schools, 2013) will be randomised to either continue this provision (control) or include MT in this provision (intervention). The study will recruit and randomise 76 schools (clusters) and 5700 school students aged 12 to 14 years, followed up for 2 years. Discussion The study will contribute to establishing if MT is an effective and cost-effective approach to promoting mental health in adolescence. Trials registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, identifier: ISRCTN86619085 . Registered on 3 June 2016.

BackgroundPrevious research suggests that mindfulness training (MT) appears effective at improving mental health in young people. MT is proposed to work through improving executive control in affectively laden contexts. However, it is unclear whether MT improves such control in young people. MT appears to mitigate mental health difficulties during periods of stress, but any mitigating effects against COVID-related difficulties remain unexamined.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether MT (intervention) versus psychoeducation (Psy-Ed; control), implemented in after-school classes: (1) Improves affective executive control; and/or (2) Mitigates negative mental health impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted (Registration: https://osf.io/d6y9q/; Funding: Wellcome (WT104908/Z/14/Z, WT107496/Z/15/Z)). 460 students aged 11-16 years were recruited and randomised 1:1 to either MT (N=235) or Psy-Ed (N=225) and assessed preintervention and postintervention on experimental tasks and self-report inventories of affective executive control. The RCT was then extended to evaluate protective functions of MT on mental health assessed after the first UK COVID-19 lockdown.FindingsResults provided no evidence that the version of MT used here improved affective executive control after training or mitigated negative consequences on mental health of the COVID-19 pandemic relative to Psy-Ed. No adverse events were reported.ConclusionsThere is no evidence that MT improves affective control or downstream mental health of young people during stressful periods.Clinical implicationsWe need to identify interventions that can enhance affective control and thereby young people’s mental health.