Frank, J. L., Broderick, P. C., Oh, Y., Mitra, J., Kohler, K., Schussler, D. L., Roeser, R., Geier, C., Berrena, E., Mahfoux, J., Levitan, J., & Greenberg, M. T. (2018). Unpublished Manuscript.
Reviewed: February 2019
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Growth mindset |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
4.13 |
4.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Emotion Regulation |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
2.71 |
2.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Sleep quality |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
4.50 |
4.47 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Anxiety |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
4.59 |
4.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stress of school performance |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
18.18 |
18.17 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Somatization |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
28.22 |
28.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Social connectedness |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
4.13 |
4.16 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mind-wandering |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
2.83 |
2.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Stress of peer pressure |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
10.34 |
10.06 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mindfulness |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
24.05 |
24.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-Compassion |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
37.50 |
37.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Depression |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
5.34 |
4.89 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Rumination |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
3.28 |
3.11 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Emotional regulation: emotional awareness subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
2.81 |
3.09 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-Compassion: isolation subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
5.91 |
5.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-Compassion: over-identified subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
5.81 |
5.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Sleep quality: reinitiating sleep subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
4.91 |
4.84 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Emotional regulation: emotional clarity subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
2.48 |
2.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Sleep quality: maintaining sleep subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
4.51 |
4.46 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-Compassion: common humanity subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
5.89 |
5.81 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Emotional regulation: impulse control subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
2.72 |
2.75 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-Compassion: mindfulness subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
6.59 |
6.55 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Self-Compassion: self-judgement subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
5.48 |
5.45 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Sleep quality: falling asleep subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
4.06 |
4.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Emotional regulation: emotional access to ER strategies subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
2.73 |
2.63 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Emotional regulation: goal-directed behavior subscale |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
3.12 |
2.69 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Illicit substance use |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
-0.31 |
0.25 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Substance Use Consequences |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
3.37 |
3.61 |
No |
-- | |
|
Substance use initiation |
Learning to Breathe (L2B) vs. Business as usual |
1 Week |
Full sample;
|
1.33 |
1.23 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 6% | |
| Black | 16% | |
| Other or unknown | 28% | |
| White | 50% |
| Hispanic | 9% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 91% |
The study took place in two high schools in an urban school district in Pennsylvania. The study included students enrolled in 11 health classes taught by four health instructors. (p. 10)
Twenty-three percent of the randomized sample received free or reduced price lunch, 9% of students were Hispanic, 16% were Black, and 50% were White. Males made up 57% of the overall sample.(pp. 10-11)
The Learning to Breathe (L2B) mindfulness program is intended to improve students' emotional regulation, compassion towards themselves and others, tolerance for distress, and executive functioning skills. The program units cover topics base on the acronym "BREATHE", which includes their "body, reflections, emotions, attention, tenderness, habits of a healthy mind, and empowerment" (p.7). In this study, the intervention was delivered in 12 sessions, each of which included an introduction, group activities, discussion, and in-class mindfulness practice. Students were given CDs and workbooks to practice at home. (pp. 7-8)
Students in the five comparison classrooms implemented the business-as-usual health curriculum. (p. 1)
Health instructors who delivered the intervention received individual training on mindfulness exercises to help them establish a personal mindfulness practice prior to delivering L2B to students. These sessions included home work and journal writing to promote mindfulness practices. Teachers also participated in a two day training prior to implementing L2B, in which they were introduced to the curriculum, delivered practice lessons to small groups and received peer-feedback on those practice sessions, and received materials to help with time management and transitions when delivering the intervention. During implementation, teachers received weekly or bi-weekly feedback from an on-site coach. Finally, videotapes of classes were viewed either by the on-site coaches or by the program developer, and they used findings from these to provide feedback in 4-6 phone calls lasting about 60 minutes each. (pp. 11-12)
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube