MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108279125 · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01548-7

Mindfulness-based interventions for children and adolescents across all settings: a scoping review protocol

2020· review· en· W3108279125 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie-France Perrier, Nalia Gurgel-Juarez, Heather L. Flowers, Anna McCormick, Sarah J. Short

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsInstitut du Savoir MontfortOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersFaculty of Health Sciences, University of OttawaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMindfulnessPsychological interventionMedicineIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.012
Bibliometrics0.0210.015
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.008

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.362 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsFrench-language works237,207