Introduction
Method
Search Strategy
Selection of Studies
Quality Appraisal
Data Extraction
Effect Size Calculation
Results
Author (year) | Country |
n
| Attrition % | Teacher % female | Teacher age (SD) | School level | SEN or MAIN | MBI | Design | Control group | Randomised | Quality rating % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benn et al. (2012) | USA | 38 | 7.9 | 91.4 | 45.6 | Various | SEN | SMART-in-Education | Quan —independent groups, pre-post test, follow-up | Wait list | Yes | 81% |
Beshai et al. (2016) | UK | 89 | 17.6 | 69.7% | – | Secondary | MAIN | Adapted MBSR/MBCT | Quan—independent groups, pre-post test | Wait list | No | 79% |
Flook et al. (2013) | USA | 19 | 5.3 | 88.9 | 43.1 (9.87) | Elementary | MAIN | mMBSR | Quan—independent groups, pre-post test | Wait list | Yes | 78% |
Frank et al. (2015) | USA | 36 | – | 77.8 | 40.72 (10.77) | High school | MIXED | Adapted MBSR | Quan—independent groups, pre-post test | Non-active | No | 58% |
Gold et al. (2010) | UK | 11 | 9.1 | – | – | Primary | MAIN | Closely followed MBSR | Quan—single group, pre-post | None | No | 57% |
Jennings et al. (2011)
study 1
| USA | 31 | 6.5 | 93.6 | 40.0 (11.8) | Elementary | MAIN | CARE | Mixed—single group, pre-post-test and focus groups | None | No | 71% |
Jennings et al. (2011)
study 2
| USA | 43 | 9.3 | 97.4 | 21.0 (5) trainee teachers 43.0 (12) mentors | Trainee teachers | MAIN | CARE | Mixed—independent groups, pre-post-test; classroom observations and focus groups | Wait list | Yes | 71% |
Jennings et al. (2013) | USA | 53 | 5.6 | 88.7 | 36.0 | Various | MAIN | CARE | Quan—independent groups, pre-post test | Wait list | Yes | 91% |
Napoli (2004) | USA | 3 | 0.0 | – | – | Elementary | MAIN | MBSR | Qual—interviews | – | – | 41% |
Poulin et al. (2008)
study 2
| Canada | 44 | – | 73.0 | 26.4 (3.8) | Trainee teachers | MAIN | MBWE | Quan—independent groups, pre-post test | Non-active | No | 50% |
Roeser et al. (2013) | Canada/USA | 113 | 7.1 | 88.5 | 46.9 (9.2) | Various | MAIN | SMART-in-Education | Quan—independent groups, pre-post-test, follow-up | Wait list | Yes | 87% |
Schussler et al. (2016) | USA | 50 (44 teachers) | – | – | 36 (22–60) | Various inc. elementary and secondary | MIXED | CARE | Qual—focus groups | – | – | 76% |
Taylor et al. (2016) | Canada | 59 | 3.4 | 89.8 | 47 (28–63) | Elementary and secondary | MAIN | SMART | Mixed—independent groupspre/post/follow-up and survey | Wait list | Yes | 72% |
Mindfulness Programmes
Measures
Effects of MBIs
Stress
Author (year) | Dependent variable/s | Effect sizes | Main findings | ES notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Benn et al. (2012) | PSS STAI CES-D PANAS Neg Pos | −0.37 −0.50 −0.42 −0.52 0.11 | Comparisons of pre- to post-intervention demonstrated significant intervention effects on anxiety and depression (p < 0.05), and nearing significance for stress (p < 0.10). Intervention effects on negative affect became significant at 2-month follow-up (F = 5.11, p < 0.05) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Beshai et al. (2016) | PSS WEMWBS | −1.23 1.19 | Significant reduction in stress (PSS: t(48) = 6.32, p < 0.001) and increase in wellbeing (WEMWBS: t(44) = −6.17, p < 0.001) from pre- to post- for intervention group only |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Flook et al. (2013) | SCL 90-R - GSI MBI EE Dep Pers | −0.08 −0.88 1.10 0.87 | Significant decrease in symptoms (SCL GSI: t(9) = −3.66, p = 0.005) and burnout (MBI EE: t(9) = −2.42, p = 0.038; MBI Pers: t(9) = 3.03, p = 0.014) for intervention group Marginally significant increase in burnout for control group (MBI Pers: t(7) = −2.35, p = 0.051) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Frank et al. (2015) | BSI - GSI Som Dep Anx MBI EE Dep Pers PSQI | −0.29 −0.24 −0.23 −0.30 −0.15 0.09 0.46 −2.12 | No significant changes in symptoms (BSI) or burnout (MBI). Significant intervention effects indicated improvement in total sleep quality scores significantly for intervention group (t(29) = −4.21, p = 0.01, d = −1.53) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Gold et al. (2010) | DASS -Dep Anx Stress | −0.93 −0.37 −0.70 | Significant improvements in depression and stress symptoms (DASS Dep: p = 0.02; DASS stress: p = 0.05) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Jennings et al. (2011) study 1
| CES-D DPS TUS Task Gen PANAS Neg Pos | 0.20 0.01 0.49 0.33 0.22 0.16 | Significant improvement in time pressure (TUS Task: p = 0.01). Nearing significant improvement in (TUS Gen: p = 0.08) |
d
RM (SDD) |
Jennings et al. (2011) study 2
| CES-D TUS Task Gen PANAS Neg Pos | −0.66 0.08 −0.08 −0.38 0.34 | No significant differences reported. |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Jennings et al. (2013) | CES-D DPS TUS Task Gen MBI EE Dep Pers PANAS Neg Pos | −0.40 −0.77 −0.49 −0.42 0.02 0.19 0.40 −0.24 0.21 | Significant intervention effects on physical symptoms (DPS: F(1, 47) = 10.2, p = 0.002), time pressure (TUS Gen: F(1, 47) = 5.4, p = 0.025) and personal accomplishment subscale of MBI (F(1, 47) = 3.9, p = 0.05) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Poulin et al. (2008) | K10 SWLS | −0.64 0.59 | Intervention effects observed for satisfaction with life (F = 6.56, p < 0.05) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Roeser et al. (2013) | STAI BDI MBI total | −0.38 −0.37 −0.22 | Significant intervention effects confirmed that intervention group reported fewer symptoms of anxiety (F(1, 53) = 7.11, p < 0.01) and depression (F(1, 53) = 10.67, p < 0.01) post-test for US sample only (maintained at 3-month follow-up) Significant intervention effects confirmed that intervention group reported less burnout post-test than control group (F(1, 108) = 14.96, p < 0.01; maintained at 3-month follow-up) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Taylor et al. (2016) | Occupat. stress T1–T2 T2–T3 | −0.32 0.24 | Significant intervention effects confirmed that intervention group reported fewer symptoms of occupational job stress compared to those in the control condition at T2 (MMBI = 2.97, SD = 0.59 vs. MWC = 3.61, SD = 0.80), F(1, 54 = 8.20 = p < 0.01) and greater stress reduction compared to controls over the prior 9 weeks (MMBI = 2.46, SD = 0.93 vs. MWC = 3.39, SD = 0.72), F(1, 54 = 17.51 = p < 0.01) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Emotion Regulation
Author (year) | Dependent variable/s | Effect sizes | Main findings | ES notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Benn et al. (2012) | ERWSES | 0.43 | Intervention effects approached significance (p < 0.10) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Frank et al. (2015) | ASRES Acknow Calm Pres Mom Accept | 1.24 1.56 1.16 0.46 | Significant differences between intervention and control groups on change scores (post-pre) indicated intervention effect for self-efficacy in acknowledgement (t(33) = 3.71, p = 0.03, d = 1.25, calmness, t(33) = 4.36, p = 0.02, d = 1.47) and present moment (t (33) = 3.69, p = 0.01, d = 1.25). No significant improvements were found for the measure of efficacy in acceptance (t (33) = 1.10, p = 0.40, d = 0.37) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Jennings et al. (2013) | ERQ Reapp Supp | −0.99 −0.57 | Significant intervention effects on emotion regulation (ERQ Reapp: F(1,47) = 10.9, p = 0.002) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Taylor et al., (2016) | Emotional Reg. efficacy | 0.50 | Significant intervention effects for efficacy for regulating emotions (MMBI = 3.37, SD = 0.60 vs. MWC = 3.00, SD = 0.85), F(1, 54 = 7.06 = p < 0.05) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Self-efficacy
Author (year) | Dependent variable/s | Effect sizes | Main findings | ES notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Benn et al. (2012) | 10 items taken from Midgley et al. (2000) | 0.65 | No significant intervention effects reported |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Jennings et al. (2011)
study 1
| TSES Student Instruction Class mgt | 0.07 0.30 0.18 | No significant effects reported |
d
RM (SDD) |
Jennings et al. (2011)
study 2
| TSES Student Instruction Class mgt | 0.50 0.56 0.17 | No significant differences observed between intervention and control groups at post-test |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Jennings et al. (2013) | TSES Student Instruction Class mgt | 0.51 0.59 0.31 | Significant intervention effects improved teacher efficacy, specifically in student engagement (TSES student: F(1, 47) = 10.3, p = 0.002) and instruction (TSES instruction: F(1, 47) = 11.6, p = 0.001) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Poulin et al. (2008) | TSES total Student Instruction Class mgt | 0.78 0.87 0.53 0.51 | Significant intervention effect on overall self-efficacy (F = 4.88, p < 0.05); intervention group showed greater improvement in self-efficacy, student engagement than control group (F = 4.51, p < 0.05) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Mindfulness and Compassion
Author (year) | Dependent variable/s | Effect sizes | Main findings | ES notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Beshai et al. (2016) | FFMQ SCS | 1.45 1.06 | Significant increase in mindfulness (FFMQ: t(48) = −9.31, p < 0.001) from pre- to post- for intervention group only Significant increase in self-compassion from pre- to post-intervention for both groups (F(1,87) = 18.90, p < 0.001) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Flook et al. (2013) | FFMQ Observe Describe Act Non-judge Non-react SCS Humanity | 0.24 0.55 0.20 −0.04 0.16 0.80 | Significant increase in mindfulness (describe subscale: t(9) = 2.53, p = 0.032) and self-compassion (SCS humanity: t(9) = 3.42, p = 0.008) in intervention group. No changes in control group Correlations between change scores demonstrated significant association between mindfulness and improvements in symptoms (SCL GSI with FFMQ acting with awareness: r = −0.76, p = 0.010; SCL GSI with FFMQ nonreactivity: r = −0.78, p = 0.007) and burnout (MBI EE with FFMQ acting with awareness: r = −0.70, p = 0.024; MBI Dep with FFMQ nonreactivity: r = −0.80, p = 0.006) in the intervention group, but no significant correlations in the control group |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Frank et al. (2015) | FFMQ Observe Describe Act Non-judge Non-react | 1.12 0.65 1.11 0.58 1.77 | Significant intervention effects for observe (t(23) = 4.63), act with awareness (t(23) = 2.66, p = 0.03, d = 1.06), non-judgment (t(23) = 3.76, p = 0.01, d = 1.50) and non-reactivity (t(23) = 3.95, p = 0.01, d = 1.58). |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Jennings et al. (2011)
study 1
| FFMQ Observe Describe Act Non-judge Non-react | 0.65 0.65 0.30 0.35 0.65 | Significant improvements in mindfulness, specifically observing (p < 0.01), describing (p < 0.01) and non-reactivity (p < 0.01). Close to significant effects on acting with awareness (p = 0.10) and non-judging (p = 0.06) |
d
RM (SDD) |
Jennings et al. (2011)
study 2
| FFMQ Observe Describe Act Non-judge Non-react | 0.63 0.17 −0.28 0.14 0.20 | No significant differences between intervention and control groups post-test |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Jennings et al. (2013) | FFMQ total Observe Describe Act Non-judge Non-react | 0.38 0.74 0.36 −0.28 −0.10 0.68 | Significant intervention effects on mindfulness: overall mindfulness score (F(1, 47) = 4.29, p = 0.044) and subscales: observing (F(1, 47) = 9.8, p = 0.003) and non-reactivity (F(1, 47) = 8.4, p = 0.006). |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Poulin et al. (2008) | KIMS total Observe Describe Act Non-judge | 0.78 0.57 0.21 0.64 0.35 | Significant intervention effects on overall mindfulness (KIMStotal: F = 12.56, p < 0.001); intervention group improved significantly more than control group on the observe (F = 8.03, p < 0.01) and act with awareness subscales (F = 13.52, p < 0.01) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |
Roeser et al. (2013) | FFMQ total Occupational SCS | 0.52 0.48 | Intervention effects reported for mindfulness (F(1, 109) = 16.92, p < 0.01) and occupational self-compassion (F(1, 107) = 31.14, p < 0.01) confirmed greater improvements for intervention group compared to control group (both maintained at 3-month follow-up) |
d
IGPP (SDpre) |