Mindfulness-based interventions for children and adolescents across all settings: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are becoming increasingly popular, the application of MBIs with children and adolescents is still in its infancy. Mapping the existing literature is necessary to help guide pediatric mindfulness interventions. Our purpose is to synthesize the evidence of reported MBIs for children and adolescents with and without physical, mental, and cognitive disorders. Accordingly, we aim to identify trends and gaps in the literature, so that we can provide direction to researchers who seek to advance the evidence base for using MBIs in pediatric populations. METHODS: Our search strategy will be conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. It will include a comprehensive search of published studies in 7 databases, gray literature, conference proceedings, and citations of selected articles. Two independent reviewers will evaluate all abstracts and full articles that have a pediatric sample (children 2-17 years), use MBIs to promote development or to remediate underlying disorders, and are written in English or French. We will identify the definitions and concepts from MBIs, categorize accepted studies according to etiology and rehabilitation type, describe intervention methodology, and report outcomes of selected studies. DISCUSSION: Our review will provide a comprehensive overview of the pediatric mindfulness intervention literature to date, involving a range of mental, cognitive, and physical outcomes for healthy children and adolescents and for those with a variety of disorders in clinical and institutional settings. We will disseminate results to mindfulness practitioners and provide guidance to future pediatric researchers in their development and application of mindfulness interventions, thereby contributing to the scientific understanding of mindfulness for the ultimate betterment of child and adolescent well-being and life-long functioning. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO does not accept scoping review protocols.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".