The Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Therapies for ADHD: A Meta-Analytic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Mindfulness-based therapies (MBTs) have been shown to be efficacious in treating internally focused psychological disorders (e.g., depression); however, it is still unclear whether MBTs provide improved functioning and symptom relief for individuals with externalizing disorders, including ADHD. To clarify the literature on the effectiveness of MBTs in treating ADHD and to guide future research, an effect-size analysis was conducted. Method: A systematic review of studies published in PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar was completed from the earliest available date until December 2014. Results: A total of 10 studies were included in the analysis of inattention and the overall effect size was d = −.66. A total of nine studies were included in the analysis of hyperactivity/impulsivity and the overall effect was calculated at d = −.53. Conclusion: Results of this study highlight the possible benefits of MBTs 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it