Group work in mindfulness-based interventions with youth: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost all mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are delivered in group format. Given the benefits of group work for children/youth, the authors wondered how researchers studying MBIs discussed and analyzed the group-work component of the MBI. The authors conducted a scoping study with the aims of analyzing relevant research regardless of design to explore the range of research activity, to summarize findings, and to identify gaps in knowledge. Our research questions asked, (1) How is group work described and discussed in the research literature that explores MBIs with children and youth? (2) When group work is discussed, what factors are the focus of discussion? and (3) Is group work considered an important aspect in the delivery of MBIs? Ultimately, the authors identified 94 articles that met their inclusion criteria. The researchers that discussed group work identified rationales for the group delivery, benefits of group work, the need for a cohesive and safe environment for learning, the relevant role of the group facilitator, cultural implications, and challenges associated with group delivery. Engagement of youth in an MBI and the importance of the group process were identified as main issues. The authors concluded that all of the factors contributing to change as a result of having participated in an MBI need to be better understood, and that group work should be given more attention in the delivery and study of MBIs. Thus, the facilitation of an MBI can be better understood as can the mechanisms of change.
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 | 0.020 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".