Evaluating the Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Incarcerated Populations: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research supports the use of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in incarcerated populations; however, treatment effectiveness remains unclear. This meta-analysis of 22 studies ( N = 2,265, 75% male) quantified the effectiveness of MBIs in incarcerated populations on key psychological outcomes and criminogenic needs. Results from pre–post studies indicated MBIs had a small to moderate effect on all outcomes, but this was not supported by controlled studies. Studies with older participants, more females, and longer treatment length demonstrated slightly greater effects. Results from pre–post analyses demonstrated significant reductions in psychological outcomes (depression, anxiety, and stress) and criminogenic needs (impulsivity, self-dysregulation, anger, substance use behavior, and attitude). However, only depression and anxiety were significantly reduced in controlled studies. Although findings offer preliminary support of the efficacy of MBIs in targeting psychological health in incarcerated populations, further controlled studies are required to examine criminogenic outcomes and recidivism rates after treatment.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".