Mindfulness

• Identity and version: Name the component or programme, its edition or protocol where relevant, and the purpose being evaluated.
• Source role: Separate direct comparative evidence, descriptive implementation findings, guidance, theoretical support and firsthand experience.
• Population and setting: Retain the studied age, communication/access characteristics and setting. State when an intended application lies outside them.
• Intended and actual delivery: Record the planned components and dose separately from what was received, by whom, and with what support or interruptions.
• Comparison and other support: Name the actual comparison and concurrent changes. If there is no comparison group or it is unreported, say so rather than supply an assumed usual-care condition.
• Outcome and reporter: Record the outcome, time point and reporter. Keep the young person’s account separate from proxy judgement, and access or participation separate from task performance.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Record whether the core components were delivered and describe adaptations; distinguish an adapted application from the protocol tested.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Record time, effort, practical access, cost or workload where known, alongside refusal, fatigue, distress, restriction and other unwanted consequences. Unreported burden is not evidence of no burden.

This common key applies to the retained source summaries below. Shorter headings such as design, dose or findings are read in that context. The key supplies no missing source data, converts no proxy report into recipient testimony and assigns no new certainty grade.

The question is what particular mindfulness practice or programme was offered, to whom, compared with what, and with which measured outcomes and unwanted effects. The accompanying full article retains the earlier practice-family scope. This profile does not verify the missing canonical master or convert conversation ratings into evidence grades.

The search was bounded around inherited material claims, controlled and null school studies, original recipient-experience research, named clinical and multicomponent programmes, and newer primary syntheses. It is not an exhaustive systematic search. Sources were read at their stated access level. Original reports, reviews, official descriptions and participant accounts serve different roles; they are not interchangeable votes for effectiveness.

Universal prevention, a personally chosen exercise and treatment for an assessed clinical need are different decisions. Distinguish immediate state experience, attention-task performance, self-reported symptoms, everyday participation and sustained outcomes. The reviewed evidence does not support importing one common benefit estimate across them.

S02–S04 concern the same MYRIAD cohort. S06–S08 overlap other reviewed research; S07 is an umbrella synthesis. Counts must not be added as independent samples. Direct pupil research informs acceptability and burden but does not estimate the frequency of causal harm in all pupils. Editorial commitments to choice and accessible communication are stated as practice boundaries rather than efficacy findings.

The newest accepted review (S11) is retained because it qualifies any blanket claim about absent follow-up evidence. Its displayed extraction conflicts remain open; inclusion in the register is not adoption of its quantitative conclusion. S10 remains abstract-limited. No source here is evidence that a generic classroom invitation reproduces a named curriculum or clinical treatment.

Each record separates the verified information from what remains unavailable. Numbered linked notes and the Sources list identify the primary location.

S01 — National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) — Meditation and mindfulness: effectiveness and safety ¹

• Identity/version: Broad meditation/mindfulness; named mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) are programmes, not synonyms for a brief exercise.
• Source role: Official information; identity and general safety context
• Design: Government evidence-information page, not a child trial.
• Population/setting: Mixed ages and applications; not a school-specific cohort.
• Intended/actual delivery: Formats vary; MBSR combines practice and discussion, MBCT incorporates cognitive therapy. No single dose.
• Comparison/co-supports: No single comparison group.
• Outcome/reporter/time: No child-specific effect estimate adopted.
• Fidelity/adaptation: Check instructor preparation and actual programme.
• Burden/unwanted effects: Safety evidence is incomplete; do not substitute the practice for needed care.
• Access: Full official webpage
• Limits: Adult efficacy and adult adverse-experience percentages are not transferred to children. Official description is not proof of school effectiveness.
• Locator: Sections “What are meditation and mindfulness?”, effectiveness, and safety.

S02 — Kuyken et al. (2022) — MYRIAD main cluster trial ²

• Identity/version: Trial-era .b curriculum; universal school mindfulness training.
• Source role: Direct comparative programme evidence
• Design: School cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT): 85 randomised; 84 contributed pupil data.
• Population/setting: 8,376 UK pupils, early adolescence, mean age 12.2; 4,232 intervention/4,144 control in Table 1.
• Intended/actual delivery: Ten 30–50-minute lessons; mean received 9.0. At one year, 7,250 supplied at least one primary outcome, not necessarily every endpoint.
• Comparison/co-supports: Existing social-emotional teaching; mindfulness was added or substituted to differing extents.
• Outcome/reporter/time: One-year standardised differences: depression risk .005 [−.05,.06]; social-emotional-behavioural functioning .02 [−.02,.07]; wellbeing .02 [−.03,.07]. No superiority; pupil scales.
• Fidelity/adaptation: Teachers delivered 83% of curriculum on average.
• Burden/unwanted effects: No intervention-related serious adverse event reported; this does not establish absence of pupil discomfort.
• Access: Full published article via UCL repository
• Limits: Unmasked reports, selective schools and attrition. Abstract reverses arm labels; Table 1/main text used. Secondary signals are not co-primary benefits.
• Locator: Methods pp.2–4; Tables 1 and 3; delivery/results; adverse events and limitations.

S03 — Montero-Marin et al. (2022) — MYRIAD moderators and mechanisms ³

• Identity/version: Same MYRIAD .b package and cohort as S02.
• Source role: Secondary trial analyses; potential differential outcomes
• Design: Moderator, implementation and pathway analyses; not another trial.
• Population/setting: Same 8,376 pupils; modelled baseline risk profiles, not diagnostic groups.
• Intended/actual delivery: Same trial course; received dose was not randomised.
• Comparison/co-supports: Same established social-emotional teaching.
• Outcome/reporter/time: Higher-risk profile: intervention-minus-control depression scores 1.40 [.27,2.53] post-course and 1.47 [.37,2.57] at one year; wellbeing −1.10 [−1.98,−.22] and −.88 [−1.71,−.05]. Authors judge differences small and not clinically relevant.
• Fidelity/adaptation: Implementation associations do not establish optimal dose; none predicted one-year outcomes.
• Burden/unwanted effects: Unfavourable subgroup signals warrant attention, not a universal diagnostic contraindication.
• Access: Full primary article
• Limits: Secondary models, multiple outcomes and missingness limit causal interpretation. Associations between skills and later outcomes do not prove this generic practice works.
• Locator: Methods; Results: student-level moderators, implementation and mechanisms; Discussion.

S04 — Montero-Marin et al. (2023) — MYRIAD practice and responsiveness ⁴

• Identity/version: Trial-era .b; intervention arm of S02, not independent replication.
• Source role: Implementation and direct pupil experience
• Design: Quantitative and qualitative secondary analyses.
• Population/setting: 4,232 pupils/43 schools; practice data 3,613; responsiveness 3,595; open responses 3,191; 1,329 elaborated enough for thematic categorisation.
• Intended/actual delivery: Ten lessons; teachers received personal mindfulness preparation and .b training. Home practice was limited.
• Comparison/co-supports: No randomised comparison for these within-arm associations.
• Outcome/reporter/time: Post-course ordinal practice mean 1.16/5; responsiveness 4.72/10. Practice scale concerns frequency per exercise, not total sessions. Pupil accounts included useful awareness and unwanted experiences.
• Fidelity/adaptation: Teaching and engagement associations are not experimentally isolated causes.
• Burden/unwanted effects: Pupils described weariness, worry, boredom and challenging thoughts. Theme frequencies refer to selected responses, not harm incidence.
• Access: Full published article via UCL repository
• Limits: Nonresponse and sparse answers may bias experience estimates; no inference that more practice would reverse primary nulls.
• Locator: Measures; Results; Table 5; limitations.

S05 — Miller et al. (2023) — Non-positive experiences of school mindfulness ⁵

• Identity/version: Historical .b delivery in English secondary schools, not verification of every current programme version.
• Source role: Original qualitative recipient-experience research
• Design: Ethnographically informed case study; observations, diaries, focus groups and interviews.
• Population/setting: Four classes in three schools, ages 11–15; unique participant total not verified.
• Intended/actual delivery: Ten-lesson course, typically 40–60 minutes; compulsory classes and one invited exam-stress group.
• Comparison/co-supports: No controlled effect comparison.
• Outcome/reporter/time: Accounts during/after teaching describe confusing instructions, difficult thoughts/sensations, boredom, perceived ineffectiveness and classroom pressure.
• Fidelity/adaptation: Delivery/context varied; researchers could not separate practice, psychoeducation and teaching effects.
• Burden/unwanted effects: Direct non-positive experiences are documented; frequency and lasting causal harm cannot be estimated.
• Access: Full publisher article; Table 2 unique pupil total not extracted
• Limits: Purposive cases; teacher-selected focus groups; researcher reflexivity described. Qualitative interpretation is not population prevalence or an efficacy verdict.
• Locator: Methods; Findings; Discussion: practice, pedagogy, school context; strengths and limitations.

S06 — Dunning et al. (2022) — Updated youth mindfulness RCT meta-analysis ⁶

• Identity/version: Mindfulness-central, taught, multisession interventions; not every visualisation, mindful activity or isolated exercise.
• Source role: Primary systematic synthesis of comparative studies
• Design: 66 randomised controlled trials (RCTs); 23 with follow-up.
• Population/setting: Children/adolescents, varied settings. Abstract total 20,138 versus body 20,168 is unresolved.
• Intended/actual delivery: Face-to-face programmes exceeding one session; heterogeneous dose.
• Comparison/co-supports: Active and passive controls analysed separately.
• Outcome/reporter/time: Attention: active-control d=.04 [−.06,.14], 11 comparisons/n=1,503; passive-control d=.35 [.11,.58]. Active anxiety/stress d=.11 [.02,.21]. This review found no significant pooled follow-up benefit.
• Fidelity/adaptation: Fidelity/quality reporting insufficient for a reliable pooled analysis.
• Burden/unwanted effects: Harms insufficiently reported; absence of a pooled estimate is not reassurance.
• Access: Full published PDF via White Rose repository
• Limits: Heterogeneity, bias and sparse follow-up; historical search to early 2022. Comparison-dependent attention findings do not establish classroom attainment.
• Locator: Eligibility; Tables 1–2; Discussion and limitations.

S07 — Grennan et al. (2026) — School mindfulness umbrella review ⁷

• Identity/version: School programmes with mindfulness as a primary component.
• Source role: Review of meta-analyses; overlapping secondary evidence
• Design: Six meta-analyses; 110 unique studies, not 110 new independent trials.
• Population/setting: Reported 28,910 participants, ages 5–18; predominantly general populations.
• Intended/actual delivery: Variable programmes; searches through 2024.
• Comparison/co-supports: Mixed controlled designs/comparison groups within constituent reviews.
• Outcome/reporter/time: Post-test g: wellbeing .13 [.01,.25], mindfulness .11 [.01,.21], anxiety .11 [.06,.17]; depression .05, not significant. Authors rate certainty very low.
• Fidelity/adaptation: No common verified programme fidelity or dose.
• Burden/unwanted effects: No sufficiently comparable pooled unwanted-effects assessment.
• Access: Full publisher article
• Limits: Review overlap, few meta-analyses per outcome, low methodological quality and insufficient follow-up synthesis. Do not add these participants to S06 or MYRIAD as independent evidence.
• Locator: Methods, results, review overlap and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE); discussion.

S08 — Pickerell et al. (2023) — Emotion regulation in upper-primary pupils ⁸

• Identity/version: Mindfulness-based and cognitive-behavioural programmes reviewed separately.
• Source role: Primary systematic synthesis; age/context boundary
• Design: 30 controlled studies: 18 mindfulness, 12 cognitive-behavioural; includes nonrandomised designs.
• Population/setting: Mindfulness subset n=2,247; mainly ages 7–12 in mainstream schools, not predominantly clinical/special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) cohorts.
• Intended/actual delivery: Mindfulness varied from two weeks to four months and 1.5–15 contact hours; diverse delivery.
• Comparison/co-supports: Varied controls; review is not a direct demonstration that mindfulness outperforms cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).
• Outcome/reporter/time: Selected emotional-awareness/modulation outcomes favoured mindfulness; anxiety, negative-emotion modulation and expression did not. Findings differ across age, duration and population subgroups.
• Fidelity/adaptation: Only some interventions manualised; no universally effective dose inferred.
• Burden/unwanted effects: Comparable adverse-event monitoring not established.
• Access: Full publisher article
• Limits: Small, heterogeneous groups, self-report and subgroup analyses prevent a general claim that younger children benefit or that shorter courses are better.
• Locator: Methods; study characteristics; mindfulness meta-analysis and Discussion.

S09 — Schonert-Reichl et al. (2015) — MindUP elementary-school trial ⁹

• Identity/version: MindUP combining mindfulness, social-emotional learning (SEL), gratitude, optimism, kindness and community activity.
• Source role: Direct comparison of a multicomponent named programme
• Design: Four-class cluster randomisation; analyses did not adjust for clustering.
• Population/setting: 99 Canadian grade 4/5 pupils: 48 programme, 51 control; mean age 10.24.
• Intended/actual delivery: Twelve weekly 40–50-minute lessons plus three-minute practices three times daily over four months.
• Comparison/co-supports: British Columbia social-responsibility provision.
• Outcome/reporter/time: Favourable post-programme executive-task, self-report and peer measures; year-end maths difference p=.07, not conventionally significant. Cortisol findings are not simply lower stress.
• Fidelity/adaptation: Teachers logged all lessons and 81%/95% of core practices.
• Burden/unwanted effects: Workload substantial; systematic unwanted-effects assessment not established.
• Access: Full primary article
• Limits: Only four clusters, individual-level analysis, no component isolation, unmasked ratings and no long follow-up. No generic attention/attainment claim follows.
• Locator: Intervention and comparison methods; Results; Limitations.

S10 — Biegel et al. (2009) — Adolescent psychiatric-outpatient MBSR ¹⁰

• Identity/version: MBSR added to psychiatric outpatient treatment.
• Source role: Direct clinical adjunct trial; abstract-limited boundary evidence
• Design: Randomised trial, five-month study.
• Population/setting: 102 outpatients aged 14–18 with heterogeneous diagnoses.
• Intended/actual delivery: Exact dose, receipt and attrition not verified from accessible abstract.
• Comparison/co-supports: Treatment as usual; intervention also continued usual treatment.
• Outcome/reporter/time: Abstract reports favourable self-rated symptoms, sleep/self-esteem and condition-naive clinician-rated functioning/diagnostic change.
• Fidelity/adaptation: Fidelity and adaptation details unavailable.
• Burden/unwanted effects: Adverse events, burden and acceptability unavailable.
• Access: Primary PubMed abstract only; attempted author PDF returned 404
• Limits: No extracted effect sizes, confidence intervals or complete methods. Clinical adjunct findings cannot justify universal classroom exercises; this source is not treated as full-text verified.
• Locator: PubMed Abstract; DOI 10.1037/a0016241.

S11 — Zhao and Huang (2026) — Adolescent anxiety follow-up review, accepted manuscript ¹¹

• Identity/version: Structured mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), not brief exercises; article in press, 5 July 2026.
• Source role: Recent synthesis with unresolved extraction checks; quantitative conclusion not adopted
• Design: Reports 11 RCTs.
• Population/setting: Reported n=9,856, ages 10–19; displayed Table 2 Ns total 11,864 (editorial calculation).
• Intended/actual delivery: Mixed courses; Table 2 categorises MYRIAD as MBCT, unlike its original .b identity.
• Comparison/co-supports: Active/passive controls and anxiety/distress constructs mixed.
• Outcome/reporter/time: Reports favourable follow-up pooling at ≥3 months, weaker later. Estimates are not adopted pending reconciliation.
• Fidelity/adaptation: Programme and sample extraction require checking against original reports.
• Burden/unwanted effects: No usable pooled unwanted-effects assessment.
• Access: Full accepted manuscript machine-readable text; PDF screenshots failed
• Limits: Do not claim every current follow-up synthesis is null. Conversely, unresolved denominators, programme labels and Table 5 grading arithmetic prevent this review upgrading A013.
• Locator: Accepted manuscript Tables 2 and 5; Methods and Results. Screenshots unavailable; tabular text audit needs final-version check.

• S02: the abstract's arm labels conflict with Table 1 and the main text. This profile uses the latter. The one-year denominator refers to at least one primary measure; it is not silently reused for each endpoint. Early-adolescent age labels also vary slightly within the report.
• S04: practice, responsiveness, open answers and elaborated thematic answers have different denominators. A mean on the ordinal home-practice scale is not a literal count of sessions, and theme percentages are not a harm rate.
• S06: the abstract and body differ by 30 in their total participant count. This discrepancy is retained rather than repaired by assumption; the verified attention comparison denominator is separately reported.
• S11: the eleven displayed sample sizes sum to 11,864 (42 + 1,349 + 555 + 66 + 102 + 100 + 108 + 653 + 8,376 + 361 + 152), whereas the manuscript headline is 9,856. A reduced analysed denominator could in principle explain differences, but no reconciliation was established here. MYRIAD is labelled MBCT rather than the original .b course. Table 5 displays two one-level downgrades yet calls one outcome moderate certainty; this also needs clarification. No pooling was independently rerun and no assertion of misconduct is made. PDF screenshots failed, so final visual/table verification remains a gate.

Record the actual activity or manual, its purpose, recipient choice, accessible format, teacher preparation, intended and received dose, changes to existing support, and fidelity or adaptations. Ask who reported what at which time. Include refusal, discomfort, privacy, workload and time displaced from other support. Do not interpret stillness, questionnaire changes or adherence as adequate evidence of meaningful benefit on their own.

The adult-change and access guidance in the article is an explicit editorial framework. It has not itself been tested as a new intervention package. Likewise, the constructed illustration is not recipient testimony or an observed case. The research participants cited here have not reviewed or approved this draft.

1. Independent editorial check is complete. Human specialist and recipient review, editorial adoption and publication remain pending.
2. Retrieve and compare the reported current master if it becomes available; exact canonical equivalence is unverified.
3. Resolve S11 against the final manuscript, supplements and original extractions before adopting numerical conclusions or an author certainty grade.
4. Obtain S10 full text before expanding its methods, harms or effect estimates. Do not fill those fields from secondary summaries.
5. Check current named-programme manuals and actual delivery before any fidelity claim. This review establishes trial-era protocols, not all subsequent editions.

1. NCCIH — Meditation and mindfulness: effectiveness and safety. Full official webpage.

2. Kuyken et al. (2022) — MYRIAD main cluster trial. Full published article via UCL repository.

3. Montero-Marin et al. (2022) — MYRIAD moderators and mechanisms. Full primary article.

4. Montero-Marin et al. (2023) — MYRIAD practice and responsiveness. Full published article via UCL repository.

5. Miller et al. (2023) — Non-positive experiences of school mindfulness. Full publisher article; Table 2 unique pupil total not extracted.

6. Dunning et al. (2022) — Updated youth mindfulness RCT meta-analysis. Full published PDF via White Rose repository.

7. Grennan et al. (2026) — School mindfulness umbrella review. Full publisher article.

8. Pickerell et al. (2023) — Emotion regulation in upper-primary pupils. Full publisher article.

9. Schonert-Reichl et al. (2015) — MindUP elementary-school trial. Full primary article.

10. Biegel et al. (2009) — Adolescent psychiatric-outpatient MBSR. Primary PubMed abstract only; attempted author PDF returned 404.

11. Zhao and Huang (2026) — Adolescent anxiety follow-up review, accepted manuscript. Full accepted manuscript machine-readable text; PDF screenshots failed.

Full A013 working article · Structured source register (internal editorial record) · Claim decisions (internal editorial record) · Search record (internal editorial record)

1. 1.

   S01 primary source; Sections “What are meditation and mindfulness?”, effectiveness, and safety.

   ↩1
2. 2.

   S02 primary source; Methods pp.2–4; Tables 1 and 3; delivery/results; adverse events and limitations.

   ↩1
3. 3.

   S03 primary source; Methods; Results: student-level moderators, implementation and mechanisms; Discussion.

   ↩1
4. 4.

   S04 primary source; Measures; Results; Table 5; limitations.

   ↩1
5. 5.

   S05 primary source; Methods; Findings; Discussion: practice, pedagogy, school context; strengths and limitations.

   ↩1
6. 6.

   S06 primary source; Eligibility; Tables 1–2; Discussion and limitations.

   ↩1
7. 7.

   S07 primary source; Methods, results, review overlap and GRADE; discussion.

   ↩1
8. 8.

   S08 primary source; Methods; study characteristics; mindfulness meta-analysis and Discussion.

   ↩1
9. 9.

   S09 primary source; Intervention and comparison methods; Results; Limitations.

   ↩1
10. 10.

    S10 primary source; PubMed Abstract; DOI 10.1037/a0016241.

    ↩1
11. 11.

    S11 primary source; Accepted manuscript Tables 2 and 5; Methods and Results. Screenshots unavailable; tabular text audit needs final-version check.

    ↩1