Cited by 77Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentSchool Health and Nursing Education

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training programme in schools compared with normal school provision (MYRIAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Open access
the MYRIAD team, Kuyken, Willem, Nuthall, Elizabeth, Byford, Sarah, Crane, Catherine, Dalgleish, Tim, Ford, Tamsin, Greenberg, Mark T. +3 more·2017·Trials

Abstract

Background: Mindfulness-based approaches for adults are effective at enhancing mental health, but few controlled trials have evaluated their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness for young people. The primary aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training (MT) programme to enhance mental health, wellbeing and social-emotional behavioural functioning in adolescence. Methods/design: To address this aim, the design will be a superiority, cluster randomised controlled, parallel-group trial in which schools offering social and emotional provision in line with good practice (Formby et al., Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) Education: A mapping study of the prevalent models of delivery and their effectiveness, 2010; OFSTED, Not Yet Good Enough: Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education in schools, 2013) will be randomised to either continue this provision (control) or include MT in this provision (intervention). The study will recruit and randomise 76 schools (clusters) and 5700 school students aged 12 to 14 years, followed up for 2 years. Discussion: The study will contribute to establishing if MT is an effective and cost-effective approach to promoting mental health in adolescence. Trials registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, identifier: ISRCTN86619085 . Registered on 3 June 2016.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13063-017-1917-4

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 138 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [84]Huppert A, Johnson DM. A controlled trial of mindfulness training in schools; the importance of practice for an impact on well-being. J Positive Psychol. 2010;5:264-74.
  2. [107]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. 27905712

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
the MYRIAD team, Kuyken, W., Nuthall, E., Byford, S., Crane, C., Dalgleish, T., Ford, T., Greenberg, M. T., Ukoumunne, O. C., Viner, R. M., & Williams, J. M. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Kuyken, Willem
Venue
Trials
Published
2017-04-26
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
194-194
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2608099725
Cited by
77
References
138
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
8.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo
Funders
Wellcome Trust (107496/Z/15/Z)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
Keywords
mindfulness training, school-based intervention, social-emotional learning, adolescent mental health, well-being, resilience, cost-effectiveness, experimental contamination, COVID-19 pandemic
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Child, Child Behavior, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Depression, Emotions, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Psychotherapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Risk Factors, School Health Services, Social Behavior, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Health Care Costs, Resilience, Psychological, Mindfulness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review