MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605330126 · doi:10.1089/acm.2016.0316

Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Clinical Samples of Adolescents with Chronic Illness: A Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2605330126 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHospital for Sick ChildrenYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMedicinePsychological interventionMEDLINEChecklistCritical appraisalMindfulnessCochrane LibraryClinical psychologySystematic reviewAttendanceInclusion and exclusion criteriaPsychiatryAlternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have emerged as a promising strategy for individuals with a chronic illness, given their versatility in targeting both physical and mental health outcomes. However, research to date has focused on adult or community-based populations. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and critically appraise MBIs in clinical pediatric samples living with chronic physical illness. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches were conducted by a Library Information Specialist familiar with the field by using EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and EBM Reviews databases. Study Eligibility, Participants, and Interventions: Published English peer-reviewed articles of MBIs in clinical samples of children and adolescents (3-18 years) with chronic physical illness. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers independently selected articles for review and extracted data. Results are narratively described, and the reporting quality of each study was assessed via the STROBE Checklist. RESULTS: Of a total 4710 articles, 8 articles met inclusion criteria. All studies were small (n < 20, except 1 study of n = 59), included only outpatient adolescent samples, and focused on feasibility and acceptability of MBI; only 1 study included a comparison group (n = 1). No studies included online components or remote attendance. All studies found that MBI was acceptable to adolescents, whereas feasibility and implementation outcomes were mixed. Many studies were underpowered to detect significant differences post-MBI, but MBI did demonstrate improvements in emotional distress in several studies. Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings: The literature on MBIs is preliminary in nature, focusing on adapting and developing MBI for adolescents. Although MBIs appear to be a promising approach to coping with symptoms related to chronic illness in adolescents, future research with adequate sample sizes and rigorous research designs is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.272
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it