Back

A review of scientific theories used to justify the delivery of school-based mindfulness programmes . A protocol for a scoping review

Abbott, P. A.; Nixon, G.; Stanley, I.; D'Ambruoso, L.

2023-06-20 public and global health
10.1101/2023.06.19.23291616 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMindfulness-based interventions are increasingly delivered in schools with the aim of promoting the mental wellbeing of pupils. The apparent success of such interventions has led to calls for mindfulness to be included in the school curriculum. However, the findings are more mixed than is often acknowledged and this may in part be because the theories justifying are rarely considered. Understanding the scientific theories underpinning SBMIs may improve the outcomes from interventions. In this paper we outline our scoping review protocol to systematically review the literature to map the scientific theories that have been identified to justify using school-based mindfulness interventions to promote pupils wellbeing. MethodsThe scoping review methodology will guide the conduct of the review. We will limit our search to scholarly databases and PhD theses to ensure the credibility of the theories. The following databases will be used: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed Central, Scopus and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Two reviewers will independently screen all abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion. We will include any study that includes a theoretical explanation linking a mindfulness intervention with its impact. Information from the papers will be extracted using a framework developed by the team. DiscussionThe scoping review will map, classify and compare scientific theories that have been used in the literature to justify the use of school-based mindfulness intervention to promote pupils mental wellbeing. The findings will be disseminated through a peer -reviewed journal article, conference presentations, our project website and social media.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.