Premium
Mindfulness‐Based Interventions for University Students: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials
Author(s) -
Dawson Anna F.,
Brown William W.,
Anderson Joanna,
Datta Bella,
Donald James N.,
Hong Karen,
Allan Sophie,
Mole Tom B.,
Jones Peter B.,
Galante Julieta
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
applied psychology: health and well‐being
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.276
H-Index - 31
eISSN - 1758-0854
pISSN - 1758-0846
DOI - 10.1111/aphw.12188
Subject(s) - mindfulness , clinical psychology , worry , psychological intervention , rumination , anxiety , mental health , randomized controlled trial , meta analysis , psychology , distress , medicine , psychiatry , cognition
Background University students are expressing an increased need for mental health support. Mindfulness‐based interventions (MBIs) are being integrated into university stress‐reduction programmes globally. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing MBI effects on university students’ mental and physical health. Methods We searched nine databases, including grey literature and trial registries. Two independent reviewers extracted data following a prospective public protocol. Results Fifty‐one RCTs were included. In comparison with passive controls, and when measured shortly after intervention completion, MBIs improve distress, anxiety, depression, well‐being, rumination, and mindfulness with small to moderate effect sizes, with no benefit found for blood pressure, sleep, life satisfaction, resilience, worry, and thought suppression. Evidence for self‐compassion is inconclusive. Effects last beyond three months for distress and mindfulness, with no data on other outcomes. Compared with active control groups, MBIs significantly improve distress and state anxiety, but not mindfulness, depression, well‐being, affect, trait anxiety, or emotion regulation. Results were robust to adjustment for multiple testing, but RCTs’ risk of bias is generally high. Moderator analyses did not find differential intervention effects according to intervention duration, delivery mode, or sub‐populations. Conclusions MBIs may be helpful to students but higher‐quality research is needed.