PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 14, 2026Frontiers in Psychology0 citationsOpen Access

Mindfulness-based interventions for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

YLY.C. LiuJiangsu UniversityQYQiang YanGuangdong University of Foreign StudiesSZShiao ZhaoMacao Polytechnic University

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for children and adolescents with ADHD through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
  • Conducted a Bayesian random-effects systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
  • Included data from 17 RCTs with a total of 2,991 participants.
  • Evaluated immediate post-intervention outcomes and performed age-stratified analyses.
  • Assessed dose–response relationships based on contact hours.
  • MBIs showed a small-to-moderate effect size (Hedges' g = 0.49) over control conditions.
  • Improvements were statistically credible in inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and global ADHD measures.
  • Age-stratified analyses indicated larger effects in youths older than 10 years.
  • Higher contact hours appeared to correlate with better outcomes, particularly in hyperactivity/impulsivity.

Abstract

Background Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents is characterized by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, and is frequently accompanied by impairments in executive functioning, task performance, and emotion regulation. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been increasingly evaluated as non-pharmacological approaches for ADHD, but findings remain heterogeneous. Objective To synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of MBIs for youths with ADHD using a pre-registered Bayesian random-effects systematic review and meta-analysis, and to examine potential moderators (age) and dose–response relationships (contact hours). Methods We conducted a pre-registered Bayesian random-effects systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating MBIs in children and adolescents with ADHD. Seven databases were searched from inception to April 30, 2025, prioritizing immediate post-intervention outcomes. Seventeen RCTs (total n = 2,991) were included. Pooled effects were summarized as Hedges' g with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Symptom-domain subgroup models were performed, and heterogeneity was quantified using I 2 and τ 2 . Age-stratified analyses (mean age 10 years vs. ≤ 10 years) and dose–response modeling based on contact hours were conducted. Results Across all outcomes, MBIs showed a small-to-moderate advantage over control conditions (Hedges' g = 0.49, 95% CrI 0.37–0.62), with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 81.6%; τ 2 = 0.16). Domain-specific subgroup models indicated statistically credible improvements in inattention (Hedges' g = 0.30, 95% CrI 0.12–0.50), hyperactivity/impulsivity (Hedges' g = 0.54, 95% CrI 0.31–0.78), executive functions (Hedges' g = 0.23, 95% CrI 0.05–0.43), global ADHD measures (Hedges' g = 1.23, 95% CrI 0.65–1.80), and task performance (Hedges' g = 0.37, 95% CrI 0.07–0.70). The estimate for emotion regulation was imprecise and included the null (Hedges' g = 0.42, 95% CrI −0.08–0.92). Age-stratified analyses suggested larger effects in samples with mean age 10 years than in those with mean age ≤ 10 years. Dose–response modeling suggested that higher contact hours may be associated with greater improvements in selected domains (notably hyperactivity/impulsivity), although uncertainty remained in several domains. Conclusion MBIs may be a promising complementary approach for improving ADHD-related outcomes in youths. However, substantial heterogeneity and risk-of-bias considerations warrant cautious interpretation and underscore the need for larger, methodologically rigorous RCTs. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view , Identifier: CRD420251079766 Public.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b4fa9ab39f7826a300b45ahttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1711994
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper