The Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Therapies for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Meta-analytic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mindfulness-based therapies (MBT) have been shown to be efficacious in treating internally-focused psychological disorders (e.g., depression), however it is still unclear whether MBT provide improved functioning and symptom relief for individuals with externalizing disorders, including ADHD. In order to clarify the literature on the efficacy of MBT in treating ADHD and to guide future research, an effect size analysis was conducted. A systematic review of studies published in PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar was completed from the earliest available date until December 2014. A total of eight studies were included in the analysis of inattention and the overall effect size was d= -.72. A total of seven studies were included in the analysis of hyperactivity-impulsivity and the overall effect was calculated at d= -.60. Findings related to changes in executive functioning pre- and post-intervention were equivocal. Results of this study highlight the possible benefits of MBT in reducing symptoms of ADHD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".