Next Article in Journal
Effects of Eight-Week Circuit Training with Core Exercises on Performance in Adult Male Soccer Players
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of the Interculturality and Mindfulness Program (PIM) on University Students: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Previous Article in Journal
The Detection of Early Reading Performance and Its Relationship with Biopsychosocial Risk Factors in the Study of Learning Difficulties
Previous Article in Special Issue
Relationship between Nomophobia, Various Emotional Difficulties, and Distress Factors among Students
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
EJIHPE
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/ejihpe12080085
ejihpe-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Child-Adolescent Population: A Developmental Perspective

by
Bárbara Porter
1,*,
Cristian Oyanadel
1,
Fabiola Sáez-Delgado
2,
Ana Andaur
3 and
Wenceslao Peñate
4
1
Departamento de Psicología, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad de Concepción, 4030000 Concepción, Chile
2
Centro de Investigación en Educación y Desarrollo y Facultad de Educación, Departamento Fundamentos de la Pedagogía, Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción, 4030000 Concepción, Chile
3
Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 8331150 Santiago, Chile
4
Departamento de Psicología Clínica, Psicobiología y Metodología, Facultad de Psicología, Campus de Guajara, Universidad de La Laguna, 38200 Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12(8), 1220-1243; https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12080085
Submission received: 18 May 2022 / Revised: 14 July 2022 / Accepted: 19 July 2022 / Published: 22 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Emotional Problems and Mindful/Acceptance Frameworks)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Human development implies deep changes in cognitive, attentional, emotional, and behavioral skills. Therefore, Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs) should be adapted in terms of dose, frequency, kind of exercises, assessment methods, and expected effects regarding the abilities and limitations of each developmental period. The present review seeks to describe and compare MBIs characteristics, assessment methods, and effects in youth between 3 and 18 years old considering four developmental periods. A systematic review was carried out including experimental primary studies published during the last five years. Results show that the frequency of the sessions and program duration varies widely. Differences were observed in instructors’ training and in assessment strategies. Discrepancies were observed regarding the effects of MBIs both within and between periods in cognitive, socio-emotional, symptoms, and mindfulness variables. Consistency was observed in prosocial behaviors for preschoolers, and in emotional and behavioral problems and hyperactivity in ages between preschool and early adolescence. Nevertheless, it was impossible to compare most results and determine consistency or discrepancy due to the lack of studies. Regarding mindfulness, it is defined and assessed in different ways in each period. Orientations are suggested to move from a compartmentalized view of isolated MBIs, towards an integrative perspective that allows tracing developmental trajectories for mindfulness and other key cognitive and socioemotional skills for children and adolescents.

1. Introduction

Common mental disorders are a relevant cause of morbidity in youth [1]. Around 20% of the world’s children and adolescents have a mental health condition; depression and anxiety are the most common mental health disorders in the child and adolescent population, causing significant developmental effects [2]. Lack of access to adequate treatment is the common rule [3]. Failure to address child and adolescent mental health problems has important consequences, since these problems hinder the achievement of basic aspects of development [4] and have lifelong effects. They also generate a high rate of disability [5], since The DALYs (Disability-Adjusted Life Years) rate is especially high for 10 to 19 years old. Due to the high demand related to child and adolescent mental health issues, and the scarcity of resources destinated to address this problem [6,7], the need of moving towards a universal and preventive intervention model, instead of an individual and reactive intervention model arises [8].
Over the past decades, Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have gained popularity, particularly in the domain of psychological well-being and symptom reduction [9]. This has led to the development of a plethora of child and adolescent universal and clinical interventions based on mindfulness [10]. Paying attention, in a particular way, with a purpose, in the present moment, and without judgment, is considered the classic definition of mindfulness in western psychology [11,12]. It has been defined as a two-component construct: (a) self-regulation of attention, which is maintained in the immediate experience, and (b) orientation to one’s own present experience characterized by curiosity, openness, and acceptance [13]. The off-center perspective of observing experiences without judgment [14] is a skill that can be trained and can have therapeutic effects [15].
MBI’s effects have been assessed abundantly in the past decade through experimental and quasi-experimental designs, showing small to medium size effects in the reduction of depression symptoms [16,17,18,19,20], anxiety [21,22,23,24,25,26], and stress [27,28,29,30]. In child and adolescent population, MBIs have been related to symptom reduction, increased wellbeing [1,10,14,15,31,32,33,34,35,36], attention regulation [37,38], emotional regulation [39,40] and behavioral regulation [41,42,43]. Despite some encouraging results, a lack of understanding about the practices within MBIs that can foster specific skills or reduce determined symptoms prevails. MBIs usually mix different practices, content, and dosage [44]. In addition, some MBIs are applied to a wide range of populations, including participants of different ages, clinical conditions, cultures, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Consequently, the evidence is not clear regarding the most appropriate type of interventions for each group, or the variables that may be more feasible to modify in each context. Socioeconomic factor has been addressed recently in a systematic review (SR) that regards MBI results in low-income schools [45]. Nevertheless, the developmental perspective has not been analyzed yet as a critical factor that can determine the success or failure of an MBI.
It is well known that human beings go through different developmental periods, in which they contemplate the acquisition and strengthening of various skills [46], although there is a controversy regarding the real consideration of developmental stages [47]. Contemporary developmental psychology has an orientation that holds an integrated relational model of human life, that synthesizes biological-through-physical ecological influences in a way that considers the complexity of human development. Additionally, the field has shown a growing appreciation of the importance of the cultural and historical influences on the quality and trajectory of human development across the course of life [48]. Therefore, it is not easy to separate life span in precise groups of specific ages, because there is always an interplay of different factors that will influence child development, increasing intragroup differentiation. Additionally, different processes develop at different timing and trends; this means that core aspects of development (e.g., language, executive functions, empathy, among many other intertwined processes) can be traced in developmental trajectories. However, there is some agreement in the literature about the general grouping: infants (or early childhood), childhood (sometimes called middle childhood), and adolescence (sometimes differentiating between early, middle, and late adolescence). Differences arise in the cutting age of each group [49,50]. For the present work we consider that, although this perspective has limitations, it provides a relevant frame for choosing effective interventions for a specific population. A panoramic developmental perspective is relevant because it considers the particularities, potentialities, and limitations of each developmental stage. Based on this view, the type of intervention and exercises, dose of practice, intervention goals, and assessment strategies can be chosen more precisely and effectively. Therefore, we will consider both views: a developmental period classification and a longitudinal view of specific developmental trajectories. For the developmental period classification, we will consider Roberts and DelVecchio [50] and Ferguson [49] on personality metanalytical research work. To classify the primary studies based on different developmental stages, we used the reported average age of each sample. Considering the average age of the sample of each primary study, we classified them into 4 groups: (1) Preschool period (3 to 6 years average sample age); (2) Middle Childhood (7 to 10.9 average sample age); (3) Early Adolescence (11 to 13.9 average sample age); (4) Middle Adolescence (14 to 18 average sample age). This classification gives some clear parameters that help with the following analysis. However, we understand the overlap between these groups and the intertwined developmental trajectories of different aspects of human development, which will be also considered and explained in the result analysis.
It is important to know what has been done in the research aimed at understanding the effects of MBIs in childhood and adolescence. However, even though some reviews have systematized the available evidence, some questions have not yet been answered, such as the similarities or differences between the MBIs applied at each developmental period, or the consistency or discrepancy regarding the effects of the MBIs both within and between stages.
In the context of the present study, a search for Systematic Reviews and Meta Reviews published in the last 10 years was conducted. 11 SRs and MR were found, which were analyzed based on their objectives, screened databases, search date, and reported limitations (Table 1). As shown in Table 1, they are a good attempt to summarize the effects and characteristics of MBIs in children and adolescents. Nevertheless, the following limitations are observed: (1) Only consider primary studies with a population belonging to some specific stages of development [35,51,52]; (2) Only consider a population with a specific socioeconomic condition [45]; (3) Consider effects of MBI on specific symptoms [1]; (4) Include only qualitative studies [36]; (5) Interventions include non-mindfulness practices (yoga, body image, SEL, Cognitive Therapy [10,51]; (6) The focus of the review is to determine the degree to which interventions align to MBI standards [53]; (7) Include primary studies conducted past 5 years [14,54,55].
Deep changes are produced in our cognitive, attentional, emotional, and behavioral skills during the human lifespan [46]; therefore, we must consider that mindfulness practice can produce different effects depending on the developmental stage, especially during childhood and adolescence. We need to have a complete scope of the main effects of this practice during all developmental stages to choose wisely. No Systematic Review has been conducted to address this objective. The present article seeks to elucidate the effectiveness of MBIs in childhood and adolescence between 3 and 18 years old, considering a developmental perspective. The purpose is to highlight the differences and similarities of interventions, assessment methods, and main effects of MBI in each developmental stage. To meet this objective a systematic review was carried out. Primary studies with experimental designs published during the last 5 years in various digital databases were included. Main effects were reported within and between 4 groups: (1) Preschool period (3 to 6 years average sample age); (2) Middle Childhood (7 to 10.9 average sample age); (3) Early Adolescence (11 to 13.9 average sample age); (4) Middle Adolescence (14 to 18 average sample age). The general objective was to describe and analyze empirical research with experimental designs that have implemented and assessed the effects of MBIs on children and adolescents with typical development considering four different stages of development (early childhood, childhood, early adolescence, and adolescence). Specifically, three objectives were established:
Objective 1. Describe Mindfulness-based interventions for children and adolescents considering 4 different developmental periods according to the following aspects: (a) Sample mean age, (b) Sample size, (c) Reported name of interventions, (d) Intervention location, (e) Duration (Weeks of intervention), (f) Total numbers of sessions, (g) Sessions frequency, (h) Session duration, (i) Person who delivers the intervention, (j) Type of exercises, (k) Intervention modality (face to face; online synchronous; online asynchronous).
Objective 2: Analyze the types of evaluation strategy (observation, self-report scale, performance task, computerized task, physiological measures) used to measure the effectiveness of the intervention, according to each developmental period.
Objective 3: Analyze the effectiveness of the interventions over dependent variables considered according to each developmental period.

2. Method

2.1. Sources/Literature Research

A systematic review of studies published in WoS, Scopus, PubMed, and EBSCO (Psych articles, and Behavioral Sciences Collection) were conducted. A total of 1587 initial references were considered. Primary studies published in English and Spanish were included, from the year of the last available published review that considered all childhood and adolescence periods (Carsley, Khoury, et al. 2018) till May 2021. The search strategy was a combination of the following terms: Title: (mindfulness) AND TOPIC: (“child” OR “adolescence” OR “adolescents” OR “teenagers” OR “teens” OR “youth” OR “school”). The search was refined considering Publishing years (2017 TO 2021) AND type of document: (ARTICLE) AND Language: (ENGLISH OR SPANISH) AND categories: (PSYCHOLOGY CLINICAL OR PSYCHOLOGY MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR PSYCHOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAL OR PSYCHOLOGY EDUCATIONAL OR PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED OR PSYCHOLOGY OR PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL).
The references of primary articles were inspected. After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of the remaining studies were screened. Finally, full-text articles were assessed to check if they met inclusion criteria. The five authors verified the retrieval process. Finally, 27 primary studies were considered in the present analysis.

2.2. Selection Criteria

Inclusion criteria were: (1) The intervention must include classic mindfulness exercises (mindful breathing, body-scan, mindful walking, mindful movement); (2) Sample age between 3 and 18 years old; (3) Nonclinical population; (4) MBI carried out in school context; (5) Experimental or Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) design; (6) Outcome must include at least one psychological variable.

2.3. Exclusion Criteria

Studies were excluded if: (1) Interventions were shorter than 1 session of 40 min; (2) MBI was conducted in other contexts (not school); (3) If randomization was done in clusters, within 3 or fewer groups; (4) Intervention included the participation of parents or other adults (not as instructors).

3. Results

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to examine reporting in a systematic way. A total of 1582 records were retrieved in the literature search. After removing duplicates and eliminating non-peer-reviewed studies, a total of 1035 articles were left. They were screened by title and abstract, checking the study method and sample. Doubtful cases were checked and solved by 2 independent judges. A total of 161 studies were sought for retrieval and were checked by screening the full text. Finally, 46 studies were assessed for eligibility, based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 19 articles were excluded because they were not experimental studies (9 studies), the sample average age was older than required (3), the sample had a clinical diagnosis (3), and were published in a different language than required (1), the MBI included adults (1), included only non-psychological dependent variables (1), or the implemented intervention was shorter than required (1). A total of 27 articles were considered eligible for inclusion through this combined search strategy (Figure 1). The methodological quality of these reviews was examined using the Cochrane Guidelines. Studies included in this review meet minimum quality standards set by Cochrane Guidelines.
All 27 studies were coded with an ID (Table 2) and analyzed later in base of an extraction matrix that included information related to each one of the objectives.
To facilitate the mention of each of the 27 primary studies, an ID number was assigned to each one, following the references correlative numbering, by which they will be referred to from now on.
In order to meet the first objective, MBIs for children and adolescents were analyzed considering four different developmental periods described before (early childhood, childhood, early adolescence, and adolescence) according to the following aspects: (a) Sample mean age, (b) Sample size, (c) Reported name of interventions, (d) Intervention location, (e) Duration: Weeks of intervention (f) Total numbers of sessions, (g) Sessions frequency, (h) Session duration, (i) Person who delivers the intervention, (j) Type of exercises, (k) Intervention modality (face to face; online synchronous; online asynchronous) (Table 3).
As shown in Table 3 a plethora of different interventions were reported. Each program has a specific duration, number of sessions, frequency, and session duration. The shorter intervention was done in 4 weeks, and the longest in 24 weeks. In addition, the frequency of the sessions varies widely (1 per week, to 5 per week) within and between periods. Related to the duration of each session, differences can be observed between periods: Preschool period shows the shorter sessions (20–40 min), meanwhile early and middle adolescence show the longer ones (40–90 min).
In the same way, a variety of instructors deliver the interventions, such as trained graduate research assistants, instructors with basic proficiency in mindfulness, trained authors, clinical psychologists, or class tutors. It is reported that some of them completed MBSR training, while others received short-term training before delivering the program.
Another important finding was related to the type of exercises and intervention modality. A greater variety of exercises was observed during early developmental periods, especially in the informal practices, which were restricted only to the classic practices in older populations. Since the authors do not usually report the guidelines of the performed practices, a deep comparison between exercises between periods was not possible. It would be interesting to know whether the same reported exercise (e.g., mindful breathing) is performed in a similar or different way between developmental periods.
Related to the intervention modality, all MBIs were delivered face-to-face. Just one of them was done online, asynchronously, with an adolescent population [79].
The second objective of this SR was to analyze the types of evaluation strategy (observation, self-report scale, performance task, computerized task, physiological measures) and the instruments used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention, according to developmental periods. To meet this objective, all the information regarding assessment strategy and instruments was shown in Table 4.
As we can see in Table 4, in the early periods a variety of assessment strategies were used. In fact, observational strategies were used only in the preschool stage. In the same way, physiological measures are still scarce. On the other hand, a great abundance of self-report scales was observed especially in middle and late adolescence, to the detriment of other assessment strategies. Regarding self-report tests, it was observed that the same tests were applied in different developmental stages. In some cases, authors applied the child (MAAS-C) or adolescent version (MAAS-A), due to the age of their target population. Nevertheless, since authors usually do not report the questions of the tests they apply, a more detailed analysis is needed to determine whether the language of the questions was adapted for each period in the other self-report tests (e.g., FFMQ was applied in periods 2 and 4).
The third and last objective was to analyze the effectiveness of the interventions over the dependent variables according to each developmental period. To meet this goal, a result analysis was conducted, considering all main variables described in each primary research (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9). Main dependent variables that showed a significant statistical change after intervention (p < 0.5) were marked with *, and the ones that did not show change were marked with +. Moreover, we analyzed these results to determine whether MBIs’ effects over a specific variable were consistent within and between developmental periods. Consistency meant that two or more studies show similar effects (e.g.: both studies show a significant statistical change in the same variable) discrepancy meant that though one or more studies show a significant change in a specific variable, others do not. This consistency or discrepancy occurred within the same period (e.g., two studies with preschool children show similar or different results over a specific dependent variable) or between periods (e.g., the variable shows a significant change in a study with preschoolers but another study, with early adolescents do not show a significant change in that same variable).
All dependent variables were reported, and grouping them into five categories, within each of the four developmental periods: (1) Cognitive (Table 5), (2) Socioemotional (Table 6), (3) Symptoms (Table 7), (4) Mindfulness (Table 8) and (5) Visual-motor skills and physiological measures (Table 9). Moreover, in the cognitive and socioemotional categories, we considered sub-categories considering critical developmental trajectories. In cognitive category we considered (1) Executive Functions [84,85]; (2) Attentional Skills [86]. In the Socioemotional category, we based our analysis on CASEL Model [87] considering (1) Self-management skills; (2) Social Awareness; (3) Relationship skills; (4) Intergroup Relationships and; (6) Classroom climate. Wellbeing, and others, where the last two sub-categories considered in the analysis of socioemotional variables. Symptoms were classified considering Achenbach’s terms of internalizing and externalizing [88,89,90,91].
Table
Table 3. Mindfulness-based interventions for children and adolescents’ characteristics for each developmental period.
Table 3. Mindfulness-based interventions for children and adolescents’ characteristics for each developmental period.
StageIDMean AgeNNamePlaceDurationN° of SessionsFrecuencySession Duration InstructorType of Excercises/Intervention Modality
1[62,66,67,68,70,73,78]3 to 6 years and 5 months21 to 218Mindful Schools Program, Mini Mind, Calmer Choice, Open Mind Korea, not reported Daycare, Preeschool, Child development center, school6 to 8 weeks12 to 32 sessions2 till 5 sessions per week20 to 40 min each sessionCertified Instructor, local trained teacher, primary researcher, graduate students with previous training.Informal practice: Mindful listening, mindful eating, watching clouds, glitter jar. Formal practice: mindful breathing, body scan, mindful eating, mindful movement, mindful emotion awareness, loving kindness practices. All face to face.
2[58,60,61,65,76]8.5 to 10.25101 to 400Pause, breathe, smile, Call to Care Israel, GaiaSchool8 to 24 weeks8 to 24 sessions 1 per week45 to 60 minTrained author, trained research assistants, Instructors with basic proficiency in mindfulness.Informal practice: Mindful listening, mindful eating, meditation bubble, imagining own safe peaceful place. Formal practice: mindful breathing, body scan, yoga, mindful walking, mindful emotion awareness, loving kindness practices. All face to face.
3[63,64,69,71,72,75,80,81,82]11.58 to 13.5 years22 to 3519SEA program, Learning to Breathe, Kamalay Curriculumb., Eline Snel programSchool, boarding school6 weeks to 5 months6 to 32 sessions1 per month to 4 per week40 to 90 min Trained clinical psychologist, Tutors of class group, trained instructors. Informal practice: Mindful listening, mindful eating, mindful task awareness, mindful relationship awareness. Formal practice: mindful breathing, body scan, yoga, mindful walking, mindful emotion awareness, mindful thoughts awareness, loving kindness practices. All face to face.
4[57,59,74,77,79,83]14.5 to 17 years30 to 1349MBSR (adapted), Learning to Breathe, Meditacion Fluir, Mindfulness Psychoeducation, Mindfulness-based well-being course.School, afterschool4 to 10 weeks8 to 12 sessions1 or 2 per week45 to 90 minMBSR trained instructor, author, trained schoolteachers.Informal practice: mindful listening, attention to 5 senses, mindful behavior awareness. Formal practice: mindful breathing, mindful body awareness, body scan, mindful awareness of emotions, mindful awareness of thoughts, loving kindness practices. Face to face and online asynchronous.
Table
Table 4. Types of evaluation strategy used for each developmental period.
Table 4. Types of evaluation strategy used for each developmental period.
StageObservational AssessmentSelf-Report ScalePerformance TaskComputerized TaskPhysiologic Measure
1(1) Classroom Assessment Scoring System (in CLASS)
(2) Child Observation Mindfulness Measure (C-OMM)
(3) Non-participant naturalistic observations based on Roche Olivar’s prosocial behavior assessment scheme		(1) Teacher version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)
(2) Minnesota executive function scale (MEFS)
(3) Theory of mind scale
(4) Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ; Very Short Form)
(5) Child Behavior Rating Scale (CBRS)
(6) Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC)
(7) Korean Personality Rating Scale for Children (KPRC)
(8) Modified Professional Behavioral Questionnaire (Mod-PBQ)
(9) Rating form for teachers to assess executive functions was grounded in the literature review of EF skills for preschoolers		(1) Head-toes-knees-shoulders
(2) Peg tapping
(3) Dimensional Change Card Sort Task
(4) Sally-Ann task
(5) The unexpected-content task
(6) Deceptive object task
(7) Visual perception tasks
(8) Hiding game 		(1) Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test (2) Go/No Go Not assessed
2Not assessed(1) Stirling Children’s Wellbeing Scale (SCWBS)
(2) Mindful Attention Awareness Scale adapted for Children (MAAS-C)
(3) Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale (SCAS)
(4) FFMQ
(5) Readiness for Social Contact measure
(6) BAffective Prejudice scale
(7) BStereotyping measure
(8) Teacher’s Report Form (TRF/6-18; Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment ASEBA) 		(1) Beery–Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI)
(2) Conjunctive Visual Search Task 		(1) Computerized Continuous Performance Task (CPT) Not assessed
3Not assessed(1) Self-Regulatory Inventory (ASRI)
(2) Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
(3) Ryff’s Psychological Well-being scale
(4) Child Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM)
(5) Mindfulness scale for school scope
(6) Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
(7) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children ( PANAS-C)
(8) Response to Stress Questionnaire
(9) Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS—C)
(10) Test Bull-S form A
(11) Mi vida en el instituto
(12) Escala de Distancia Social
(13) Barratt Impulsiveness
(14) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)
(15) Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ)
(16) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC)
(17) Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) (18) The Resilience scale (RS14)
(19) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)
(20) Youth Self-Report (YSR)
(21) Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function Self Report (BRIEF-SR) [92]
(22) A single-item measure of perceived stress level developed by the program developer
(23) Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS) 		(1) Face match performance during fMRI
(2) Working Memory Index (WMI)
(3) Digit span subtest from the WISC-IV
(4) NEPSY-II
(5) Trail Making test and Verbal Fluency sub test from D-KEFS 		Not assessed(1) fMRI
4Not assessed(1) Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)
(2) Optimism (EQ-i, YV)
(3) Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i, YV)
(4) Mindfulness (FFMQ)
(5) Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED.)
(6) Child Acceptance and Mindfulness Measure (CAMM)
(7) Escala Atribucional de Motivación de Logro (EAML)
(8) Cuestionario de Estrategias y Motivación para el Aprendizaje (MSLQ)
(9) Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)
(10) The Values in Action Inventory of Strengths for Youth/VIA-Youth
(11) Two-factor Revised Beck Depression Inventory Finnish version (R-BDI;)
(12) Finnish School Burn-out Inventory
(13) Short-form World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQoL-BREF
(14) Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)
(15) Basic Nordic Sleep Questionnaire
(16) Happiness item from UN’s World Happiness Report
(17) Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form (SCS-SF)
(18) Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS)
(19) Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8)
(20) Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7)
(21) Rumination subscale of the Rumination and Reflection Questionnaire (RRQ)
(22) Stress was measured with two subscales of the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire (ASQ)
(23) The Adolescent Sleep-Wake Scale (ASWS)
(24) Social Connectedness Scale Revised (SCC-R)
(25) Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ)
(26) Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale for Children (IT)
(27) Substance Initiation Index
(28) Young Adult Alcohol Problems Screening Test (YAAPST)
Not assessed(1) Automated Operation Span Task (AOSPAN)
(2) Computerized version of the Stroop Task
(3) Modified version of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART)
(4) Modified Emotional Faces N-back Task (EFN-back) 		Not assessed
Table
Table 5. MBI effects over cognitive dependent variables (significant statistical change and consistency analysis) *.
Table 5. MBI effects over cognitive dependent variables (significant statistical change and consistency analysis) *.
PeriodSkillsVariablesDiscrepancy or Consistency of Results ID (Period)
1Executive FunctionsTask Orientation +No significant changes
Working Memory *+Discrepancy between periods: 67 (1) *, 59 (4) *//81 (3) +
Executive Functions *+Discrepancy within period: 68 (1) *,70 (1) *, 81 (3) *//67 (1) +
Self-Regulation (inhibitory behavioral control) +No significant changes
Attentional SkillsSustained Attention *+Discrepancy between periods 65 (2) *//62 (1) +
Inhibition +No significant changes
Shifting +No significant changes
2Attentional SkillsSustained Attention *+Discrepancy between periods 65 (2) *//62 (1) +
Selective Attention *One study cannot compare: 64 (2) *
3Executive FunctionsRote Memory *One study, cannot compare: 81 (3) *
Working Memory *+Discrepancy between periods: 67 (1) *, 59 (4) *//81 (3) +
Response Inhibition *One study, cannot compare: 81 (3) *
Cognitive Processing *One study, cannot compare: 81 (3) *
Cognitive Flexibility *One study, cannot compare: 81 (3) *
Self-monitoring *One study, cannot compare: 80 (3) *
OthersVerbal Fluency *One study, cannot compare: 81 (3) *
4Executive FunctionsWorking Memory *+Discrepancy between periods: 67 (1) *, 59 (4) *//81 (3) +
Attentional SkillsInhibitory Control attention +No significant changes
Attention Regulation +No significant changes
OthersAcademic Achievement *One study, cannot compare: 68 (4)
Note: Variables column: * Significant statistical change post-intervention; + No significant change; *+ Discrepant changes within or between periods (2 or more studies). Discrepancy/Consistency column: ID (period) * Significant statistical change; //ID (period)+ non-significant change post intervention.
Table
Table 6. MBI effects over socioemotional dependent variables (significant statistical change and consistency analysis) *.
Table 6. MBI effects over socioemotional dependent variables (significant statistical change and consistency analysis) *.
PeriodSkillsVariablesDiscrepancy or Consistency of Results ID (Period)
1Self Managment SkillsEmotion regulation *+Discrepancy between periods 83 (4) *//78 (1) +, 72(3) +,
80 (3) +
Social AwarenessEmotional Perspective Taking *One study, cannot compare: 73 (1) *
Cognitive Perspective Taking *One study, cannot compare: 73(1) *
Visual Perspective Taking +No significant changes
Theory of Mind +No significant changes
Relationship SkillsTeacher Interaction +No significant changes
Peer Interaction +No significant changes
Prosocial behavior **Consistency within period: 66 (1) *, 73 (1) *, 78 (1) *
OthersResilience **Consistency between periods: 78 (1) *, 75 (3) *
2Relationship SkillsReadiness for social contact *One study, cannot compare: 61 (2)
Intergroup RelationshipsAffective Prejudice *One study, cannot compare: 61 (2)
Stereotyping *One study, cannot compare: 61 (2)
WellbeingGeneral Wellbeing *One study, cannot compare: 58 (2)
Subjective Wellbeing *One study, cannot compare: 58 (2)
Psychological Wellbeing *+Discrepancy between periods 63 (3) *//58 (2) +
3Self Managment SkillsSelf-regulation (sum, short, long term) *One study, cannot compare
Emotion Regulation *+Discrepancy between periods 83 (4) *//78 (1) +, 72(3) +,
80 (3) +
Emotional Control +No significant changes
Primary Coping +No significant changes
Socio-emotional functioning *One study, cannot compare: 75 (3) * Significant change only for girls
Intergroup RelationshipsSocial Distancing +No significant changes
Bullying +No significant changes
Classroom ClimateSocial Climate (positive and negative) *One study, cannot compare 82 (3) *
WellbeingSelf-esteem *One study, cannot compare: 63 (3) *
Psychological Wellbeing *+Discrepancy between periods: 63 (3) *//58 (2) +
OthersResilience **Consistency between periods: 78 (1) *, 75 (3) *
4Self Managment Skills Emotion regulation *+ Discrepancy between periods 83 (4) *//78 (1) +, 72(3) +,
80 (3) +
Risk Taking +No significant changes
Achievement Motivation *One study, cannot compare: 74 (4) *
Intrinsic, Extrinsic, Learning Motivation +No significant changes
Task Appreciation +No significant changes
Intergroup relationshipsSocial Connectedness *One study, cannot compare: 83 (4) * change only group adequate practice
WellbeingPsychological Quality of Life *One study, cannot compare: 79 (4) *
OthersCharacter Strengths *One study, cannot compare: 77 (4) *
Optimism +No significant changes
Note: Variables column: * Significant statistical change post-intervention; + No significant change; ** Consistent significant change (2 or more studies); *+ Discrepant changes within or between periods (2 or more studies). Discrepancy/Consistency column: ID (period) * Significant change; //ID (period)+ non-significant change.
Table
Table 7. MBI effects over symptoms (significant statistical change and consistency analysis) *.
Table 7. MBI effects over symptoms (significant statistical change and consistency analysis) *.
PeriodKind of SymptomsVariablesDiscrepancy or Consistency of Results ID (Period)
1Internalizing SymptomsEmotional problems (SDQ subscale) **Consistency between periods: 70 (1) *, 75 (3) *
Externalizing SymptomsHyperactivity **Consistency within and between periods: 66 (1) *, 70 (1) *, 76 (2) *, 75 (3) *
Conduct Problems **Consistency between periods: 70 (1) *, 75 (3) *
2Internalizing SymptomsAnxiety Symptoms *+Discrepancy within and between periods: 60 (2) *, 80 (3) *, 79 (4) *//72 (3) +, 59 (4) +, 83 (4) +
Depressive Symptoms *+Discrepancy within and between periods: 76 (2) *, 75 (3) *, 79 (4) *//72 (3) +, 83 (4) +
Somatic Complaints *Cannot compare, only one study: 76 (2)
Externalizing SymptomsHyperactivity **Consistency within and between periods: 66 (1) *, 70 (1) *, 76 (2) *, 75 (3) *
Inattention *Cannot compare, only one study: 76 (2)
Rule Breaking *Cannot compare, only one study: 76 (2)
Aggressive Behavior *Cannot compare, only one study: 76 (2)
3Internalizing SymptomsPerceived Stress *+Discrepancy within and between periods: 69 (3) *, 57 (4) *//59 (4) +
Depressive Symptoms *+Discrepancy within and between periods: 76 (2) *, 75 (3) *, 79 (4) *//72 (3) +, 83 (4) +
Anxiety Symptoms *+Discrepancy within and between periods: 60 (2) *, 80 (3) *, 79 (4) *//72 (3) +, 59 (4) +, 83 (4) +
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation +No significant changes.
Rumination *+Discrepancy between periods: 80 (3) *, 83 (4) *, (study 83 reported higher rumination in experimental group post intervention)
Emotional problems (SDQ subscale) **Consistency between periods: 70 (1) *, 75 (3) *
Extrernalizing symptomsHyperactivity **Consistency within and between periods: 66 (1) *, 70 (1) *, 76 (2) *, 75 (3) *
Conduct Problems **Consistency between periods: 70 (1) *, 75 (3) *
Negative Affect *Cannot compare, only one study: 69 (3)
Impulsivity *Cannot compare, only one study: 82 (3)
4Internalizing SymptomsPerceived StressDiscrepancy within and between periods: 69 (3) *, 57 (4) *//59 (4) +
Anxiety Symptoms *+Discrepancy within and between periods: 60 (2) *, 80 (3) *, 79 (4) *//72 (3) +, 59 (4) +, 83 (4) +
Depressive Symptoms *+Discrepancy within and between periods: 76 (2) *, 75 (3) *, 79 (4) *//72 (3) +, 83 (4) +
Sleep problems +No significant changes.
Externalizing SymptomsSubstance Abuse +No significant changes.
Negative substance Abuse consequences +No significant changes.
Note: Variables column: * Significant statistical change post-intervention; + No significant change; ** Consistent significant change (2 or more studies); *+ Discrepant changes within or between periods (2 or more studies). Discrepancy/Consistency column: ID (period) * Significant statistical change; //ID (period) + non-significant change post intervention.
Table
Table 8. MBI effects over mindfulness variables (significant statistical change and consistency analysis) *.
Table 8. MBI effects over mindfulness variables (significant statistical change and consistency analysis) *.
PeriodVariablesDiscrepancy or Consistency of Results ID (Period)
1Orientation to experience *Cannot compare, only one study: 61 (1) *
Self-Regulated Attention +No significant changes.
2General Mindfulness (FFMQ) **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Observing **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Describing **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Acting with awareness **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Non-judging **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Non-reacting **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Trait Mindfulness (MAAS-C) *+Discrepancy between periods: 58 (2) *, 77 (4) *//71 (3) +
3Kinesthetic Mindfulness *Cannot compare, only one study: 64 (3) *
External Mindfulness +No significant changes.
Internal Mindfulness *Cannot compare, only one study: 64 (3) *
Mindfulness (CAMM) *+Discrepancy between periods: 63 (3) *//59 (4) +, 79 (4) +, 83 (4) +
4General Mindfulness (FFMQ) **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Observing **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Describing **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Acting with awareness **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Non-judging **Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Trait Mindfulness (MAAS-C) *+Consistency between periods: 60 (2) *, 57 (4) *
Mindfulness (CAMM) *+Discrepancy between periods: 63 (3) *//59 (4) +, 79 (4) +, 83 (4) +
Mind Wandering *Cannot compare, only one study: 83 (4) *
Note: Variables column: * Significant statistical change post-intervention; + No significant change; ** Consistent significant change (2 or more studies); *+ Discrepant changes within or between periods (2 or more studies). Discrepancy/Consistency column: ID (period) * Significant statistical change; //ID (period) + non-significant change post intervention.
Table
Table 9. MBI effects over physiologic and viso-motor variables (significant statistical change and consistency analysis) *.
Table 9. MBI effects over physiologic and viso-motor variables (significant statistical change and consistency analysis) *.
PeriodKind of VariablesVariablesDiscrepancies/Consistency of Results
2Visual-motor SkillsVisual Perception *Cannot compare, only one study: 60 (2) *
Motor Accuracy *Cannot compare, only one study: 60 (2) *
3Physiologic MeasuresAmygdala Reactivity *Cannot compare, only one study: 69 (3) *
Note: Variables column: * Significant statistical change post-intervention. Discrepancy/Consistency column: ID (period) * Significant statistical change.

4. Discussion

The first objective of this review was to describe MBIs for children and adolescents considering the different stages of development (pre-school period, middle childhood, early adolescence, and adolescence) according to the age, duration, number, duration, and frequency of sessions, person who delivers the intervention, type of exercises and intervention modality (face to face; online synchronous; online asynchronous).
Related to the total duration of the program, number, and frequency of sessions, great variability was observed, not showing consistency within each developmental stage. This is important because the total duration and the number of sessions or frequency are not determined by specific developmental needs. The only parameter that can be related to developmental issues is the duration of each session, which shows a consistent difference between periods. These parameters should be assessed considering the most effective formula for each developmental period, in the same way that MBSR has been considered the golden standard for the adult population [11,12]. Since the ability to sustain attention is a skill that develops over time, it is important to consider the evolutionary aspect in the design of MBI sessions. Subjecting a child to an excessively prolonged practice can produce the opposite desired effect, causing rejection, resistance, or anxiety.
In the same way, there is no global standard about the minimum training and practice required to be able to deliver mindfulness programs for children and teens, as was reported by Emerson [53], which can be an obstacle to assessing the effects of MBIs, due to the interference of instructor proficiency.
Related to the type of exercises, a variety of practices were observed at early ages, especially in the informal practices, restricting to the most classic ones in the adolescent population. This self-imposed restriction could hinder the adherence of adolescents to MBI, diminishing the variety of mindfulness practices that can be shared with them. Although it is known that a mindfulness intervention must have certain basic exercises such as breathing awareness, body scan, attention to movement, and mindful walking [12], it would be interesting not to give up the variety of practices that can be done with adolescents, to address their motivation and commitment with the practice. On the other hand, although there is a difference in the methodology used (use of concrete material in the early stages vs. classic exercises in adolescents), there is no greater variation in the complexity of the skills to be developed. Nevertheless, a deeper analysis is needed, to compare the guidelines of the performed practices.
Related to the intervention modality, almost all were delivered face to face. Just one program (for adolescents) was delivered online [79]. Considering the growing need for effective online interventions due to the pandemic context, its necessary to develop this trend. Online interventions present opportunities and limitations. A significant opportunity is the possibility to overcome geographical limitations and ease access to a population that, otherwise, would not be able to take part in this kind of interventions (vulnerable or rural sectors). Therefore, online interventions can be universal and cheaper, since the logistical cost of rooms and transfers are avoided. Concrete material is important to facilitate mindfulness practice in the early stages and could be a limitation of online interventions. However, this problem can be solved easily, by using material that is accessible at home (recycling) or sending the material via courier to the children’s homes. Among the limitations, the access to the internet is relevant, and the risk that the practice of mindfulness becomes an additional online activity, such as math or science classes, represents one more activity to do and an eventual burden for students.
The second objective of this RS was to analyze the different assessment strategies (observation, self-report scale, performance task, computerized task, physiological measures) and the instruments used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention, according to stages of development. Although it is obvious that observational assessments were used with preschoolers due to the impossibility of applying self-report scales, the almost exclusive preference for self-report scales in later stages must be questioned. Although they have adequate psychometric indicators, must be complemented with other evaluation strategies. As stated by Thorndike and Thorndike-Christ [93], paper and pencil tests cannot appropriately assess many instructional objectives and cognitive functions. More direct or authentic assessment is required for some of them. For example, it can be recommended to use systematic observation for some constructs (such as peer relationship skills). In this context, it is important to choose the assessment methods according to the complexity of the variable we are evaluating. Thus, can be necessary to complement self-report scales with other strategies such as observation guidelines, performance tasks, computerized tasks, or physiological measures, in addition to self-report scales applied to other informants (teachers, parents). As quoted by Shrout and Rodgers [94], the generalizability and veracity of results can be assessed if we can conceptually replicate a result, that may involve a similar but not identical intervention, alternate outcome measures, or samples from a distinctly different population. Therefore, a variety of assessment strategies is needed.
The third objective was to analyze the effectiveness of the interventions over the dependent variables considered in the studies according to each developmental period. 5 categories were considered: (1) Cognitive, (2) Socioemotional, (3) Symptoms, (4) Mindfulness, and (5) Visual-motor skills and physiological measures. Cognitive, socioemotional and symptoms categories included sub-categories related to core skills developmental trajectories. Regarding the cognitive variables, it is noteworthy that the executive functions were evaluated in 3 of the 4 stages (stages 1, 3 and 4) presenting in stage 2 (7 to 11 years) only the evaluation of attentional skills. Although attention skills could be closely related to executive functions, they would not be part of them. Some studies consider selective attention as a precursor to executive functions [86]. On the other hand, attentional variables are only evaluated in stages 1, 2, and 4. This discontinuity of variables that are evaluated between the stages could be related to a lack of developmental perspective when selecting the cognitive variables to be developed through an MBI. It would be interesting to incorporate an integrated view of development, operationalizing both the executive functions and the attentional variables according to each stage (e.g., how they manifest, develop, and can be assessed) to have a continuous and non-compartmentalized perspective of their development.
On the other hand, there were significant changes in certain executive functions in stages 1 and 3, but not in stage 4. It will be necessary to analyze whether this is due to variables associated with the intervention (duration, frequency, type of exercises), the instructor’s proficiency, or developmental particularities of adolescence, which would make it more complex to develop these skills within this period.
The assessment of executive functions is an example of the probable role that plays the assessment method on the effects of MBIs. As shown in Table 5, executive functions were assessed in stage 1. In one primary study, the assessment method of EF was a self-report scale completed by the teachers [67]. No significant results were obtained pre-post intervention. On the other hand, a primary study [68] that assessed executive functions used performance tasks (more direct measures) showing significant changes pre-post intervention. In this case, the assessment method could have affected the results. Therefore, it is important to consider the complexity of factors involved when attributing certain effects to an MBI. It will be necessary to consider not only the characteristics of the intervention but also the suitability of the assessment methods and the characteristics of each developmental period.
Considering the natural skills development within each period is important too. For example, in stage 1, the theory of mind is included as a dependent variable [68]. Theory of mind (TOM) is children’s understanding of persons’ mental states, which according to Wellman and Liu [95] can be sequentially developed from almost 3 to 5 years old. In the referred primary study [68] no significant changes were found in TOM between the experimental and control groups. One possible explanation for this could be that the children in the control group also developed this ability due to normal developmental effects. We can ask then, is it relevant to try to promote this ability during this developmental period through the MBI, given that there is an effect associated with natural socio-cognitive development? On the other hand, variability in TOM development can be seen between individuals. Therefore, is it worth promoting this ability only in individuals who may present a lower development than expected for their stage of development? This kind of question should be done to consider the interplay between the MBI effects and the natural developmental trajectories of different skills along a lifespan.
Regarding MBIs effects over symptoms, a significant change was observed in most of them through the different stages, which would indicate that the MBI effectively helps relieve discomfort during childhood and adolescence. Nevertheless, the effectiveness in reducing symptoms seems not to be the same along different stages. In earlier stages (1 and 2) the effects of MBIs in symptom reduction seem to stand out over adolescence, in which the relief seems to happen just in some of them. It would be necessary to ponder the reason for that. One hypothesis may be that adolescents, being more aware of their discomfort, are more likely to answer self-report scales in a self-critical way. Once again, the assessment methods and the particularities of each developmental stage can be playing a role.
A significant effect of MBIs could be seen in physiological measures and visual-motor skills. However, only 2 primary studies include them, with a population belonging to stage 2, middle childhood, [60] and 3, early adolescence [69]. It would be interesting to include these kinds of variables and assessment methods in stages 1 and 4.
Regarding Mindfulness, a central variable to affirm the internal validity of the studies, important differences in the definition, operationalization, and assessment was observed between developmental periods. Each primary study defined and assessed mindfulness differently. For example, in stage 1 mindfulness was considered as an orientation to experience, a skill evaluated by an observer [62] while in stage 2 [60] mindfulness was defined based on the classic facets of the 5FMQ, considering General Mindfulness, Observing, Describing, Acting with awareness, Non-judging, Non-reacting [96]. It is complex to compare MBIs effects if mindfulness is defined and evaluated differently according to each developmental period. One way to solve this would be to define mindfulness as a unified construct, considering Wilson [97] latent variable model. Considering a developmental perspective, mindfulness, as a latent variable, could progressively increase in complexity according to each developmental stage. Therefore, mindfulness could be assessed through different observed items, according to the level of complexity expected for each developmental stage, maintaining construct coherence and consistency along a lifespan.
Another important issue is the consistency of MBIs effects over certain variables within or between developmental periods. Consistent results can be glimpsed in a few variables, such as prosocial behavior in preschoolers (stage 1); emotional and conduct problems in preschoolers (stage 1) and early adolescents (stage 3); hyperactivity in ages between preschoolers and early adolescents (stages 1, 2 and 3), and mindfulness (general and five factors of FFMQ, for periods 2 and 4). Discrepant results within or between developmental stages were observed for cognitive and socioemotional variables, symptoms, and mindfulness. Most variables were assessed only in one study, so could not be compared. These gaps should be addressed in future studies, to be able to demonstrate more robustly the consistency of MBI effects, or, on the other hand, to understand which factors may be at the base of discrepant effects considering if this occurs within the same period of development, or between different stages.
Based on the results of this study and the analysis carried out, the following practical guidelines can be proposed: (1) Change from a compartmentalized perspective to an integrated view of skills development during childhood and adolescence in the planning and delivery of MBIs. Based on this holistic view, the skills that are expected to be developed through the MBI can be defined, considering strengths, limitations, and expected standards at each developmental period. As the spectrum of cognitive, emotional, social, and motor skills available to children and adolescents becomes more complex, participants can be challenged to a greater degree. (2) Design MBIs based on the evidence by testing and considering the best formula for each development period in terms of program duration, frequency, and types of exercises. In relation to the types of exercises, it is important that the variability is not only in terms of the kind of materials (e.g., concrete material for earlier stages) or length of the session but also in the pedagogical intentionality that is at the base (what strategy will be used to develop a certain skill and at which level of complexity is desired to promote). (3) Define mindfulness as a latent variable that can be assessed according to the complexity of each developmental period. This implies the use of varied assessment strategies that minimize the difficulties presented by the exclusive use of self-reporting. (4) Address the existing gaps regarding the effects of the MBI on cognitive, socio-emotional, symptomatic, and physiological dependent variables that have not yet been evaluated or have been assessed but cannot be compared. These gaps may be because the research in this field is recent. However, it is important to address them to determine if MBIs effects are consistent or discrepant both within and between developmental periods.
Some limitations of the present review are: (1) Our search included only English and Spanish language peer-reviewed articles. Therefore, this review cannot be claimed as exhaustive, due to the excluded papers. (2) A deep comparison between mindfulness practices in different developmental periods could not be accomplished. Since most authors do not report exercise guidelines, it was not possible to make a more detailed comparison between the contents of each practice (e.g., compare whether the language and way of performing “mindful breathing” are similar or different between periods). (3) Regarding self-report tests, we observed that some of them were applied at different developmental periods. However, we could not compare whether the language was adapted according to each stage of development. (4) We considered only experimental primary studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to address these limitations in future revisions.

5. Conclusions

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have shown significant effects on child and adolescent populations, particularly in symptom reduction, executive functions, and socioemotional skills. However, these results should be analyzed with caution, considering, the wide variability in terms of types of intervention, assessment strategies, and skills definitions, which makes it practically impossible to compare the effects of MBIs within and between developmental periods. Incorporating a developmental perspective implies defining variables considering latent models, using varied assessment strategies, and incorporating instruments that are comparable to each other, considering the capacities and limitations of each developmental period. This will facilitate an accurate and integrated understanding of the effects of the MBIs in the child and adolescent population within and between developmental stages. The foregoing is essential to understand how MBIs work during childhood and adolescence, regarding what dose, frequency, and type of exercises are the most indicated, and which skills can benefit the most within each developmental stage.

Author Contributions

B.P. and F.S.-D. designed the study and coordinated the data collection. B.P., F.S.-D., C.O., A.A. and W.P. contributed to the data analyses and manuscript preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

C.O. and W.P. declare having received financial support from the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID)/International Cooperation Program/Project MEC80180087 of the Chilean Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge, and Innovation. B.P. declares having received funding from Doctoral Scholarship n° 21180390 from ANID.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. This research does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Informed consent was not required.

References

  1. Caldwell, D.M.; Davies, S.R.; Hetrick, S.E.; Palmer, J.C.; Caro, P.; López-López, J.A.; DSc, D.G.; Kidger, J.; Thomas, J.; French, C.; et al. School-based interventions to prevent anxiety and depression in children and young people: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 2019, 6, 1011–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Garaigordobil, M.; Bernarás, E.; Jaureguizar, J.; Machimbarrena, J.M. Childhood Depression: Relation to Adaptive, Clinical and Predictor Variables. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Morris, J.; Belfer, M.; Daniels, A.; Flisher, A.; Villé, L.; Lora, A.; Saxena, S. Treated prevalence of and mental health services received by children and adolescents in 42 low-and-middle-income countries. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2011, 52, 1239–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kieling, C.; Baker-Henningham, H.; Belfer, M.; Conti, G.; Ertem, I.; Omigbodun, O.; Rohde, L.A.; Srinath, S.; Ulkuer, N.; Rahman, A. Child and adolescent mental health worldwide: Evidence for action. Lancet 2011, 378, 1515–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kessler, R.C.; Angermeyer, M.; Anthony, J.C.; De Graaf, R.O.N.; Demyttenaere, K.; Gasquet, I.; de Girolamo, G.; Gluzman, S.; Gureje, O.; Haro, J.M.; et al. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry 2007, 6, 168–176. [Google Scholar]
  6. Belfer, M.L. Child and adolescent mental disorders: The magnitude of the problem across the globe. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2008, 49, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. National Research Council (US); Institute of Medicine (US). Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth, and Young Adults: Research Advances and Promising Interventions. In Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders among Young People: Progress and Possibilities; O’Connell, M.E., Boat, T., Warner, K.E., Eds.; National Academic Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dowdy, E.; Ritchey, K.; Kamphaus, R.W. School-based screening: A population-based approach to inform and monitor children’s mental health needs. Sch. Ment. Health 2010, 2, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Choudhury, S.; Moses, J.M. Mindful interventions: Youth, poverty, and the developing brain. Theory Psychol. 2016, 26, 591–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Šouláková, B.; Kasal, A.; Butzer, B.; Winkler, P. Meta-review on the effectiveness of classroom-based psychological interventions aimed at improving student mental health and well-being, and preventing mental illness. J. Prim. Prev. 2019, 40, 255–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kabat-Zinn, J. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). Constr. Hum. Sci. 2003, 8, 73. [Google Scholar]
  12. Santorelli, S.F.; Kabat-Zinn, J.; Blacker, M.; Meleo-Meyer, F.; Koerbel, L. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (Mbsr) Authorized Curriculum Guide; Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Health Care, and Society (CFM), University of Massachusetts Medical School: Worcester, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bishop, S.R.; Lau, M.; Shapiro, S.; Carlson, L.; Anderson, N.D.; Carmody, J.; Segal, Z.V.; Abbey, S.; Speca, M.; Velting, D. Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 2004, 11, 230–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Burke, C.A. Mindfulness-based approaches with children and adolescents: A preliminary review of current research in an emergent field. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2010, 19, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Klingbeil, D.A.; Renshaw, T.; Willenbrink, J.B.; Copek, R.A.; Chan, K.T.; Haddock, A.; Yassine, J.; Clifton, J. Mindfulness-based interventions with youth: A comprehensive meta-analysis of group-design studies. J. Sch. Psychol. 2017, 63, 77–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Teasdale, J.D.; Segal, Z.V.; Williams, J.M.G.; Ridgeway, V.A.; Soulsby, J.M.; Lau, M.A. Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2000, 68, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kuyken, W.; Byford, S.; Taylor, R.S.; Watkins, E.; Holden, E.; White, K.; Barrett, B.; Byng, R.; Evans, A.; Mullan, E.; et al. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy to prevent relapse in recurrent depression. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2008, 76, 966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Deyo, M.; Wilson, K.A.; Ong, J.; Koopman, C. Mindfulness and rumination: Does mindfulness training lead to reductions in the ruminative thinking associated with depression? EXPLORE J. Sci. Health 2009, 5, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Raes, F.; Griffith, J.W.; Van Der Gucht, K.; Williams, J.M.G. School-Based Prevention and Reduction of Depression in Adolescents: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Mindfulness Group Program. Mindfulness 2014, 5, 477–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Raveepatarakul, J.; Suttiwan, P.; Iamsupasit, S.; Mikulas, W.L. A mindfulness enhancement program for Thai 8-to 11-year old children: Effects on mindfulness and depression. J. Health Res. 2014, 28, 335–341. [Google Scholar]
  21. Evans, S.; Ferrando, S.; Findler, M.; Stowell, C.; Smart, C.; Haglin, D. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. J. Anxiety Disord. 2008, 22, 716–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Biegel, G.M.; Brown, K.W.; Shapiro, S.L.; Schubert, C.M. Mindfulness-based stress reduction for the treatment of adolescent psychiatric outpatients: A randomized clinical trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2009, 77, 855–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Hofmann, S.G.; Sawyer, A.T.; Witt, A.A.; Oh, D. The effect of mindfulness-based therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2010, 78, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liehr, P.; Diaz, N. A Pilot Study Examining the Effect of Mindfulness on Depression and Anxiety for Minority Children. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2010, 24, 69–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, Y.W.; Lee, S.H.; Choi, T.K.; Suh, S.Y.; Kim, B.; Kim, C.M.; Cho, S.J.; Kim, M.J.; Yook, K.; Ryu, M. Effectiveness of mindfulness based cognitive therapy on female elementary students with generalized anxiety disorder. Int. J. Psychol. Behav. Res. 2014, 3, 159–165. [Google Scholar]
  26. Fumero, A.; Peñate, W.; Oyanadel, C.; Porter, B. The effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on anxiety disorders. a systematic meta-review. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020, 10, 704–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chiesa, A.; Serretti, A. Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress management in healthy people: A review and meta-analysis. J. Altern. Complementary Med. 2009, 15, 593–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lau, N.-S.; Hue, M.-T. Hue, Preliminary outcomes of a mindfulness-based programme for Hong Kong adolescents in schools: Well-being, stress and depressive symptoms. Int. J. Child. Spiritual. 2011, 16, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Frank, J.L.; Reibel, D.; Broderick, P.; Cantrell, T.; Metz, S. The effectiveness of mindfulness-based stress reduction on educator stress and well-being: Results from a pilot study. Mindfulness 2015, 6, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jee, S.H.; Couderc, J.-P.; Swanson, D.; Gallegos, A.; Hilliard, C.; Blumkin, A.; Cunningham, K.; Heinert, S. A pilot randomized trial teaching mindfulness-based stress reduction to traumatized youth in foster care. Complementary Ther. Clin. Pract. 2015, 21, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Carsley, D.; Heath, N.L.; Fajnerova, S. Effectiveness of a Classroom Mindfulness Coloring Activity for Test Anxiety in Children. J. Appl. Sch. Psychol. 2015, 31, 239–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gu, J.; Strauss, C.; Bond, R.; Cavanagh, K. How do mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction improve mental health and wellbeing? A systematic review and meta-analysis of mediation studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 37, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zoogman, S.; Goldberg, S.B.; Hoyt, W.T.; Miller, L. Mindfulness interventions with youth: A meta-analysis. Mindfulness 2015, 6, 290–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Klingbeil, D.A.; Fischer, A.J.; Renshaw, T.; Bloomfield, B.; Polakoff, B.; Willenbrink, J.B.; Copek, R.A.; Chan, K.T. Effects Of Mindfulness-Based Interventions On Disruptive Behavior: A Meta-Analysis Of Single-Case Research. Psychol. Sch. 2017, 54, 70–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Carsley, D.; Khoury, B.; Heath, N.L. Heath, Effectiveness of Mindfulness Interventions for Mental Health in Schools: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis. Mindfulness 2018, 9, 693–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sapthiang, S.; Van Gordon, W.; Shonin, E. Health school-based mindfulness interventions for improving mental health: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2019, 28, 2650–2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Felver, J.C.; Tipsord, J.M.; Morris, M.J.; Racer, K.H.; Dishion, T.J. The Effects of Mindfulness-Based Intervention on Children’s Attention Regulation. J. Atten. Disord. 2014, 21, 872–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Tang, Y.Y.; Ma, Y.; Wang, J.; Fan, Y.; Feng, S.; Lu, Q.; Yu, Q.; Sui, D.; Rothbart, M.K.; Fan, M.; et al. Short-term meditation training improves attention and self-regulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 17152–17156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Lutz, J.; Herwig, U.; Opialla, S.; Hittmeyer, A.; Jäncke, L.; Rufer, M.; Holtforth, M.G.; Brühl, A.B. Mindfulness and emotion regulation—an fMRI study. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2013, 9, 776–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Desrosiers, A.; Vine, V.; Curtiss, J.; Klemanski, D.H. Observing nonreactively: A conditional process model linking mindfulness facets, cognitive emotion regulation strategies, and depression and anxiety symptoms. J. Affect. Disord. 2014, 165, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schonert-Reichl, K.A.; Smith, V.; Zaidman-Zait, A.; Hertzman, C. Promoting children’s prosocial behaviors in school: Impact of the “Roots of Empathy” program on the social and emotional competence of school-aged children. Sch. Ment. Health 2012, 4, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schonert-Reichl, K.A.; Oberle, E.; Lawlor, M.S.; Abbott, D.; Thomson, K.; Oberlander, T.F.; Diamond, A. Enhancing cognitive and social–emotional development through a simple-to-administer mindfulness-based school program for elementary school children: A randomized controlled trial. Dev. Psychol. 2015, 51, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Kaunhoven, R.J.; Dorjee, D. How does mindfulness modulate self-regulation in pre-adolescent children? An integrative neurocognitive review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2017, 74, 163–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Greenberg, M.T.; Harris, A.R. Nurturing Mindfulness in Children and Youth: Current State of Research. Child Dev. Perspect. 2012, 6, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Segal, S.C.; Vyas, S.S.; Monson, C.M. A Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Low-Income Schools. Mindfulness 2021, 12, 1316–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Miller, P.H. Theories of Developmental Psychology; Macmillan Publishers Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  47. Burman, E. Deconstructing Developmental Psychology; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lerner, R.M.; Easterbrooks, M.A.; Mistry, J. Developmental Science Across the Life Span: An Introduction; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ferguson, C.J. A meta-analysis of normal and disordered personality across the life span. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 98, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Roberts, B.W.; DelVecchio, W.F. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 126, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Miller, S.; Mendelson, T.; Lee-Winn, A.; Dyer, N.L.; Khalsa, S.B.S. Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Testing the Effects of Yoga with Youth. Mindfulness 2020, 11, 1336–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cilar, L.; Štiglic, G.; Kmetec, S.; Barr, O.; Pajnkihar, M. Effectiveness of school-based mental well-being interventions among adolescents: A systematic review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2020, 76, 2023–2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Emerson, L.; de Diaz, N.N.; Sherwood, A.; Waters, A.; Farrell, L. Mindfulness interventions in schools: Integrity and feasibility of implementation. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2020, 44, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McKeering, P.; Hwang, Y.-S. A systematic review of mindfulness-based school interventions with early adolescents. Mindfulness 2019, 10, 593–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Felver, J.C.; Celis-de Hoyos, C.E.; Tezanos, K.; Singh, N.N. A systematic review of mindfulness-based interventions for youth in school settings. Mindfulness 2016, 7, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ponsoda, F.C. The effect of an out-of-school mindfulness program on adolescents’ stress reduction and emotional wellbeing. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte 2017, 17, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  58. Devcich, D.A.; Rix, G.; Bernay, R.; Graham, E. Effectiveness of a Mindfulness-Based Program on School Children’s Self-Reported Well-Being: A Pilot Study Comparing Effects With An Emotional Literacy Program. J. Appl. Sch. Psychol. 2017, 33, 309–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Quach, D.; Gibler, R.C.; Mano, K.E.J. Does home practice compliance make a difference in the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions for adolescents? Mindfulness 2017, 8, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tarrasch, R.; Margalit-Shalom, L.; Berger, R. Enhancing visual perception and motor accuracy among school children through a mindfulness and compassion program. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Berger, R.; Brenick, A.; Tarrasch, R. Reducing Israeli-Jewish pupils’ outgroup prejudice with a mindfulness and compassion-based social-emotional program. Mindfulness 2018, 9, 1768–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lemberger-Truelove, M.E.; Carbonneau, K.J.; Atencio, D.J.; Zieher, A.; Palacios, A.F. Self-regulatory growth effects for young children participating in a combined social and emotional learning and mindfulness-based intervention. J. Couns. Dev. 2018, 96, 289–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Modi, S.; Joshi, U.; Narayanakurup, D. To what extent is mindfulness training effective in enhancing self-esteem, self-regulation and psychological well-being of school going early adolescents? J. Indian Assoc. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 2018, 14, 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rodriguez-Ledo, C.; Orejudo, S.; Cardoso, M.J.; Alzugaray, F.J.Z. Emotional intelligence and mindfulness: Relation and enhancement in the classroom with adolescents. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tarrasch, R. The effects of mindfulness practice on attentional functions among primary school children. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018, 27, 2632–2642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Viglas, M.; Perlman, M. Effects of a Mindfulness-Based Program on Young Children’s Self-Regulation, Prosocial Behavior and Hyperactivity. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018, 27, 1150–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wood, L.; Roach, A.T.; Kearney, M.A.; Zabek, F. Enhancing executive function skills in preschoolers through a mindfulness-based intervention: A randomized, controlled pilot study. Psychol. Sch. 2018, 55, 644–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zelazo, P.D.; Forston, J.L.; Masten, A.S.; Carlson, S.M. Mindfulness Plus Reflection Training: Effects on Executive Function in Early Childhood. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Bauer, C.C.; Caballero, C.; Scherer, E.; West, M.R.; Mrazek, M.D.; Phillips, D.T.; Whitfield-Gabrieli, S.; Gabrieli, J.D.E. Mindfulness training reduces stress and amygdala reactivity to fearful faces in middle-school children. Behav. Neurosci. 2019, 133, 569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Janz, P.; Dawe, S.; Wyllie, M. Mindfulness-based program embedded within the existing curriculum improves executive functioning and behavior in young children: A waitlist controlled trial. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rawlett, K.E.; Friedmann, E.; Thomas, S.A. Mindfulness based intervention with an attentional comparison group in at risk young adolescents: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Integr. Med. Res. 2019, 8, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Alampay, L.P.; Tan, L.J.T.G.; Tuliao, A.P.; Baranek, P.; Ofreneo, M.A.; Lopez, G.D.; Fernandez, K.G.; Rockman, P.; Villasanta, A.; Angangco, T.; et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of a mindfulness program for Filipino children. Mindfulness 2020, 11, 303–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Berti, S.; Cigala, A. Mindfulness for Preschoolers: Effects on Prosocial Behavior, Self-Regulation and Perspective Taking. Early Educ. Dev. 2020, 33, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Franco, C.; Soriano, E.; Amutio, A.; Manas, I. Improving motivation in Latin American immigrants through a mindfulness-based program: A randomized study. Ter. Psicol. 2020, 38, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Volanen, S.-M.; Lassander, M.; Hankonen, N.; Santalahti, P.; Hintsanen, M.; Simonsen, N.; Raevuori, A.; Mullola, S.; Vahlberg, T.; But, A.; et al. Healthy learning mind–effectiveness of a mindfulness program on mental health compared to a relaxation program and teaching as usual in schools: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 260, 660–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ghiroldi, S.; Scafuto, F.; Montecucco, N.F.; Presaghi, F.; Iani, L. Effectiveness of a school-based mindfulness intervention on children’s internalizing and externalizing problems: The Gaia project. Mindfulness 2020, 11, 2589–2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Güldal, Ş.; Satan, A. The effect of mindfulness based psychoeducation program on adolescents’ character strengths, mindfulness and academic achievement. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kim, E.; Jackman, M.M.; Jo, S.H.; Oh, J.; Ko, S.Y.; McPherson, C.L.; Hwang, Y.-S.; Singh, N.N. Effectiveness of the mindfulness-based OpenMind-Korea (OM-K) preschool program. Mindfulness 2020, 11, 1062–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lahtinen, O.; Salmivalli, C. An Effectiveness Study of a Digital Mindfulness-Based Program for Upper Secondary Education Students. Mindfulness 2020, 11, 2494–2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lam, K.; Seiden, D. Effects of a brief mindfulness curriculum on self-reported executive functioning and emotion regulation in Hong Kong adolescents. Mindfulness 2020, 11, 627–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lassander, M.; Hintsanen, M.; Suominen, S.; Mullola, S.; Fagerlund, Å.; Vahlberg, T.; Volanen, S.-M. The Effects of School-based Mindfulness Intervention on Executive Functioning in a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2020, 45, 469–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pinazo, D.; García-Prieto, L.T.; García-Castellar, R. Implementation of a program based on mindfulness for the reduction of aggressiveness in the classroom. Rev. De Psicodidáctica (Engl. Ed.) 2020, 25, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Frank, J.L.; Broderick, P.C.; Oh, Y.; Mitra, J.; Kohler, K.; Schussler, D.L.; Geier, C.; Roeser, R.W.; Berrena, E.; Mahfouz, J.; et al. The Effectiveness of a Teacher-Delivered Mindfulness-Based Curriculum on Adolescent Social-Emotional and Executive Functioning. Mindfulness 2021, 12, 1234–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Best, J.R.; Miller, P.H.; Jones, L.L. Executive functions after age 5: Changes and correlates. Dev. Rev. 2009, 29, 180–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Hughes, C. Changes and challenges in 20 years of research into the development of executive functions. Infant Child Dev. 2011, 20, 251–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Veer, I.M.; Luyten, H.; Mulder, H.; van Tuijl, C.; Sleegers, P.J. Selective attention relates to the development of executive functions in 2, 5-to 3-year-olds: A longitudinal study. Early Child. Res. Q. 2017, 41, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Weissberg, R.P.; Durlak, J.A.; Domitrovich, C.E.; Gullotta, T.P. Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In Handbook of Social and Emotional Learning: Research and Practice; Durlak, J.A., Domitrovich, C.E., Weissberg, R.P., Gullotta, T.P., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  88. Achenbach, T.M. Integrative Guide for the 1991 Cbcl/4-18, Ysr, and Trf Profiles; Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont: Burlington, VT, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  89. Achenbach, T.M.; Ruffle, T.M. The Child Behavior Checklist and related forms for assessing behavioral/emotional problems and competencies. Pediatrics Rev. 2000, 21, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Achenbach, T.M. Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (Aseba): Development, Findings, Theory, and Applications; University of Vermont, Research Center of Children, Youth & Families: Burlington, VT, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  91. Masten, A.S.; Roisman, G.I.; Long, J.D.; Burt, K.B.; Obradović, J.; Riley, J.R.; Boelcke-Stennes, K.; Tellegen, A. Developmental cascades: Linking academic achievement and externalizing and internalizing symptoms over 20 years. Dev. Psychol. 2005, 41, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Guy, S.C.; Isquith, P.K.; Gioia, G.A. BRIEF (The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive-Function-Self-Report Version BRIEF-SR), Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Self-Report Version; Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.: Odessa, FL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  93. Thorndike, R.M.; Thorndike-Christ, T.M. Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education; Pearson: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  94. Shrout, P.E.; Rodgers, J.L. Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2018, 69, 487–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wellman, H.M.; Liu, D. Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Dev. 2004, 75, 523–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Baer, R.A.; Smith, G.T.; Lykins, E.; Button, D.; Krietemeyer, J.; Sauer, S.; Walsh, E.; Duggan, D.; Williams, J.M.G. Construct Validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples. Assessment 2008, 15, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wilson, M. Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach; Routledge: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
Ejihpe 12 00085 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the search and selection process. From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews [56].
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the search and selection process. From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews [56].
Ejihpe 12 00085 g001
Table
Table 1. Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis search.
Table 1. Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis search.
IDReferenceObjectiveScreened Data Bases Search DateObserved/Declared Limitrations
[45]Segal, S. C., Vyas, S. S., and Monson, C. M. (2021). A Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Low-Income Schools. Mindfulness, 1–16 Review and summarize the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions delivered in low-income schools (Grades 3–9) on psychological functioning. PsycINFO, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and MEDLINE.December 2019Sample: only low-income population, small sample.
[52]Cilar, L., Štiglic, G., Kmetec, S., Barr, O., and Pajnkihar, M. (2020). Effectiveness of school-based mental well-being interventions among adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(8), 2023–2045.Identify school-based interventions for ensuring mental health and well-being of adolescents, synthesize existing interventions, and summarize the quality of identified studies.Cochrane Library, PsychARTICLES, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Medline.March 2019Sample do not include kids younger than 10 years old.
They include non-mindfulness practices.
[51]Miller, S., Mendelson, T., Lee-Winn, A., Dyer, N. L., and Khalsa, S. B. S. (2020). Systematic review of randomized controlled trials testing the effects of yoga with youth. Mindfulness, 11(6), 1336–1353.Report whether yoga has effects on youth health and mental health outcomes.PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index -Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Science and Humanities.April 2017Primary studies include yoga practices, not mindfulness
[53]Emerson, L. M., De Diaz, N. N., Sherwood, A., Waters, A., and Farrell, L. (2020). Mindfulness interventions in schools: Integrity and feasibility of implementation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(1), 62–75.Synthesize the literature on the implementation of school based MBIs and determine the degree to which the interventions align to standards for MBIsCINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science. August 2018 and 23 October 2018.Address the degree to which interventions align to standards.
[54]McKeering, P. and Y.-S. Hwang (2019). “A systematic review of mindfulness-based school interventions with early adolescents.” Mindfulness 10(4): 593–610.Advance the current understanding of school based MBIs for early adolescents by addressing the
identified methodological and empirical limitations of current reviews on school based MBIs.		PsycINFO, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, Education Source, Scopus, Academic OneFile, Medline, PubMed, A+ Education.October 2017 Sample: only early adolescents.
[36]Sapthiang, S., Van Gordon, W., and Shonin, E. (2019). Health school-based mindfulness interventions for improving mental health: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(10), 2650–2658.Conduct the first systematic review and thematic synthesis to rigorously evaluate the qualitative evidence pertaining to students’ experiences of school based MBIs.PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, and Google Scholar.March 2019Only qualitative studies.
[1]Caldwell, D. M., Davies, S. R., Hetrick, S. E., Palmer, J. C., Caro, P., López-López, J. A., ... and Welton, N. J. (2019). School-based interventions to prevent anxiety and depression in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(12), 1011–1020.Assess the comparative effectiveness of educational setting-based interventions for preventing depression and anxiety in children and young people.MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for published and unpublished.April 2018Primary outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation, or self-harm.
[10]Šouláková, B., Kasal, A., Butzer, B., and Winkler, P. (2019). Meta-review on the effectiveness of classroom-based psychological interventions aimed at improving student mental health and well-being and preventing mental illness. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 40(3), 255–278.Summarize existing evidence from systematic reviews and metanalyses on the effectiveness of school-based psychological interventions aimed at improving student mental health and well-being and preventing mental illness.PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, Medline, Embase, and HMIC (Health Management Information Consortium)No dataThese systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluated the effects of five types of school-based psychological interventions: Mindfulness, Social Emotional Learning, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Yoga, and BodyImage.
[35]Carsley, D., Khoury, B. and Heath, N.L. Effectiveness of Mindfulness Interventions for Mental Health in Schools: a Comprehensive Meta-analysis. Mindfulness 9, 693–707 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0839-2The first objective of this metanalysis is to determine the strength of the effects of school-based mindfulness interventions on mental health and wellbeing outcomes. Subsequently, the second objective is to examine and compare the strength of the effects of the moderators for these interventions based on (1) developmental periods, (2) gender groups, (3) type of mindfulness intervention, and (4) the identity of the facilitator. The current meta-analysis will provide important information on the potential role of individual differences and intervention characteristics across developmental periods in the effectiveness of mindfulnessA systematic review of studies published in PsycINFO, ERIC, Social Work Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and CINAHL was conducted. Data was collected during November 2016 and revised in March 2017.Sample age: middle childhood, early and late adolescence. They compare strengths of effects and moderators of MBIs, but studies are older than 5 years.
[14]Burke, C. A. (2010). Mindfulness-based approaches with children and adolescents: a preliminary review of current research in an emergent field. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9282-x.The aim is to provide a preliminary overview of all the available research in this newly emerging field.PsychINFO, PSYarticles, BioMed Central, CSA Illumina, Medline, blackwell Synergy, JSTOR, Web of Knowledge Version 4, Science Direct, SpringerLink, Wiley Interscience, and the Cochrane Library, or acquired directly from the author.No dataStudies are older than 10 years.
[55]Felver, et al. (2016). “A systematic review of mindfulness-based interventions for youth in school settings.” Mindfulness 7(1): 34–45.The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the
current scientific literature base of MBI for youth in school settings summarizing the existing literature and evaluating the methodologies employed in these studies. Specific limitations in the research and recommendations for future studies necessary to advance the nascent field will be identified.		Multiple electronic databases were searched Databases included PsychINFO, ERIC, MEDLINE, and PubMedPublished anytime until June of 2014.Consider all ages but studies are older than 5 years and do not compare through developmental stages.
Table
Table 2. ID reference coding of Primary Articles.
Table 2. ID reference coding of Primary Articles.
IDAuthorsYearTitle
[57]Ponsoda, F.C.2017The effect of an out-of-school mindfulness program on adolescents’ stress reduction and emotional wellbeing
[58]Devcich, D.A.; Bernay, R.; Graham, E.2017Effectiveness of a Mindfulness-Based Program on School Children’s Self-Reported Well-Being: A Pilot Study Comparing Effects with An Emotional Literacy Program
[59]Quach, D.; Mano, Gibler, R.C.; Jastrowski Mano, K.E.2017Does Home Practice Compliance Make a Difference in the Effectiveness of Mindfulness Interventions for Adolescents?
[60]Tarrasch, R; Margalit-Shalom, L; Berger, R.2017Enhancing Visual Perception and Motor Accuracy among School Children through a Mindfulness and Compassion Program
[61]Berger, R; Brenick, A.; Tarrasch, R.2018Reducing Israeli-Jewish Pupils’ Outgroup Prejudice with a Mindfulness and Compassion-Based Social-Emotional Program
[62]Lemberger–Truelove, M.E.; Carbonneau, K. J., Atencio, D. J.; Zieher, A. K.; Palacios, A. F.2018Self-Regulatory Growth Effects for Young Children Participating in a Combined Social and Emotional Learning and Mindfulness-Based Intervention
[63]Modi, S.; Joshi, U; Narayanakurup, D.2018To what extent is mindfulness training effective in enhancing self-esteem, self-regulation and psychological well-being of school going early adolescents?
[64]Rodriguez-Ledo, C; Orejudo, S., Cardoso, M. J., Balaguer, Á., & Zarza-Alzugaray, J2018Emotional Intelligence and Mindfulness: Relation and Enhancement in the Classroom with Adolescents
[65]Tarrasch, R.2018The Effects of Mindfulness Practice on Attentional Functions Among Primary School Children
[66]Viglas, M. & Perlman, M. 2018Effects of a Mindfulness-Based Program on Young Children’s Self-Regulation, Prosocial Behavior and Hyperactivity
[67]Wood, L; Roach, A. T., Kearney, M. A., & Zabek, F. 2018Enhancing executive function skills in preschoolers through a mindfulness-based intervention: A randomized, controlled pilot study
[68]Zelazo, P. D.; Forston, J. L.; Masten, A. S. & Carlson, S. M.2018Mindfulness Plus Reflection Training: Effects on Executive Function in Early Childhood
[69]Bauer, C. C; Caballero, C.; Scherer, E; West, M. R.; Mrazek, M. D.; Phillips, D. T.; Whitfield–Gabrieli, S; Gabrieli, J. D.2019Mindfulness Training Reduces Stress and Amygdala Reactivity to Fearful Faces in Middle-School Children
[70]Janz, P; Dawe, S; Wyllie, M.2019Mindfulness-Based Program Embedded Within the Existing Curriculum Improves Executive Functioning and Behavior in Young Children: A Waitlist Controlled Trial
[71]Rawlett, K. E.; Friedmann, E; Thomas, S. A.2019Mindfulness-based intervention with an attentional comparison group in at risk young adolescents: a pilot randomized controlled trial
[72]Alampay, L. P..; Galvez Tan, L. J. T., Tuliao, A. P., Baranek, P., Ofreneo, M. A., Lopez, G. D., ... & Guintu, V. 2020A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Mindfulness Program for Filipino Children
[73]Berti, S. & Cigala, A.2020Mindfulness for Preschoolers: Effects on Prosocial Behavior, Self-Regulation and Perspective Taking
[74]Franco, C.; Soriano, E; Amutio, A. & Mañas, I.2020Improving motivation in Latin American immigrants through a mindfulness-based program: A randomized study
[75]Volanen, S. M; Lassander, M; Hankonen, N; Santalahti, P; Hintsanen, M; Simonsen, N; Raevuori, A; Mullola, S; Vahlberg, T; But, A; Suominen, S2020Healthy learning mind—Effectiveness of a mindfulness program on mental health compared to a relaxation program and teaching as usual in schools: A cluster-randomized controlled trial
[76]Ghiroldi, S.; Scafuto, F.; Montecucco, N. F.; Presaghi, F. & Iani, L.2020Effectiveness of a School-Based Mindfulness Intervention on Children’s Internalizing and Externalizing Problems: the Gaia Project
[77]Güldal, Ş. & Satan, A.2020The effect of mindfulness-based psychoeducation program on adolescents’ character strengths, mindfulness, and academic achievement
[78]Kim, E; Jackman, M. M.; Jo, S. H.; Oh, J.; Ko, S. Y.; McPherson, C. L.; Hwang, Y. S.; Singh, N. N.2020Effectiveness of the Mindfulness-Based Open Mind-Korea (OM-K) Preschool Program
[79]Lahtinen, O; Salmivalli, C.2020An Effectiveness Study of a Digital Mindfulness-Based Program for Upper Secondary Education Students
[80]Lam, K. & Seiden, D.2020Effects of a Brief Mindfulness Curriculum on Self-reported Executive Functioning and Emotion Regulation in Hong Kong Adolescents
[81]Lassander, M.; Hintsanen, M.; Suominen, S.; Mullola, S.; Fagerlund, Å; Vahlberg, T.; Volanen, S. M.2020The Effects of School-based Mindfulness Intervention on Executive Functioning in a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
[82]Pinazo, D.; García-Prieto, L. T.; García–Castellar, R.2020Implementation of a program based on mindfulness for the reduction of aggressiveness in the classroom
[83]Frank, J. L. B; Broderick, P. C.; Oh, Y.; Mitra, J.; Kohler, K.; Schussler, D. L.; Geier, C.; Roeser, R. W.; Berrena, E.; Mahfouz, J.; Levitan, J.; Greenberg, M. T.2021The Effectiveness of a Teacher-Delivered Mindfulness-Based Curriculum on Adolescent Social-Emotional and Executive Functioning
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Porter, B.; Oyanadel, C.; Sáez-Delgado, F.; Andaur, A.; Peñate, W. Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Child-Adolescent Population: A Developmental Perspective. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2022, 12, 1220-1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12080085

AMA Style

Porter B, Oyanadel C, Sáez-Delgado F, Andaur A, Peñate W. Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Child-Adolescent Population: A Developmental Perspective. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2022; 12(8):1220-1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12080085

Chicago/Turabian Style

Porter, Bárbara, Cristian Oyanadel, Fabiola Sáez-Delgado, Ana Andaur, and Wenceslao Peñate. 2022. "Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Child-Adolescent Population: A Developmental Perspective" European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 12, no. 8: 1220-1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12080085

APA Style

Porter, B., Oyanadel, C., Sáez-Delgado, F., Andaur, A., & Peñate, W. (2022). Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Child-Adolescent Population: A Developmental Perspective. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 12(8), 1220-1243. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe12080085

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop