IntroductionLevels of stress in UK university students are high, with an increase in the proportion of students seeking help in recent years. Academic pressure is reported as a major trigger. Mindfulness training has been shown to reduce stress and is popular among students, but its effectiveness in this context needs to be ascertained. In this pragmatic randomised controlled trial, we hypothesise that the provision of a preventative mindfulness intervention in universities could reduce students' psychological distress during the examination period (primary outcome), improve their resilience to stress up to at least 1 year later, reduce their use of mental health support services and improve academic performance.Methods and analysisAt least 550 University of Cambridge students free from active crises or severe mental illness will be randomised to joining an 8-week mindfulness course or to mental health provision as usual (one-to-one allocation rate). Psychological distress will be measured using the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure at baseline, postintervention, examination term and 1-year follow-up. Other outcomes are use of mental health services, inability to sit examinations or special circumstance requests, examination grades, well-being, altruism and coping measured with ecological momentary assessment. Outcome assessment and intention-to-treat primary analysis using linear mixed models adjusted for baseline scores will be blind to intervention allocation. We will also conduct per-protocol, subgroup and secondary outcome analyses. An Independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee will be set up. We will systematically monitor for, and react to, possible adverse events. An advisory reference group will comprise student representatives, members of the University Counselling Service and other student welfare staff.Ethics and disseminationApproval has been obtained from Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PRE.2015.060). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. A lay summary will be disseminated to a wider audience including other universities.Trial registration numberACTRN12615001160527; pre-results.
QuestionMindfulness-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 analysisWe 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.FindingsSixty-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.ConclusionsThe 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.
Objective: Recent studies suggest mental health in youths is deteriorating. The current policy in the United Kingdom emphasizes the role of schools for mental health promotion and prevention, but little data exist on what aspects of schools influence mental health in pupils. This study explored school-level influences on the mental health of young people in a large school-based sample from the United Kingdom. Method: Baseline data from a large cluster randomized controlled trial collected between 2016 and 2018 from mainstream secondary schools selected to be representative in relation to their quality rating, size, deprivation, mixed or single-sex pupil population, and country were analyzed. Participants were pupils in their first or second year of secondary school. The study assessed whether school-level factors were associated with pupil mental health. Results: The study included 26,885 pupils (response rate ¼ 90%; age range, 11-14 years; 55% female) attending 85 schools in the United Kingdom. Schools accounted for 2.4% (95% CI: 2.0%-2.8%; p < .0001) of the variation in psychopathology, 1.6% (95% CI: 1.2%-2.1%; p < .0001) of depression, and 1.4% (95% CI: 1.0%-1.7%; p < .0001) of well-being. Schools in urban locations, with a higher percentage of free school meals and of White British, were associated with poorer pupil mental health. A more positive school climate was associated with better mental health. Conclusion: School-level variables, primarily related to contextual factors, characteristics of pupil population, and school climate, explain a small but significant amount of variability in mental health of young people. This information might be used to identify schools that are in need of more resources to support mental health of young people.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.