Impact of mindfulness-based interventions on sports performance and mental health: An umbrella review

Abstract

Background/Objective

While Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs) are increasingly explored for enhancing sports performance and mental health in athletes, existing systematic reviews present conflicting results regarding their efficacy due to methodological inconsistencies and varied athlete populations. To address these discrepancies, this umbrella review critically evaluates evidence from systematic reviews to determine the aggregate effects of MBIs on sports performance, mindfulness indicators, and mental health outcomes among athletes.

Methods

Systematic searches of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, and Scopus were conducted from inception to January 2024. Included studies were systematic reviews examining MBIs for athletic populations and reporting on sports performance, mindfulness indicators, or mental health outcomes. Methodological quality of included reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2.

Results

Fifteen systematic reviews and meta-analyses, encompassing 10,503 athletes, met inclusion criteria. Most reviews indicated positive trends for MBIs in improving sports performance, mindfulness indicators and various mental health outcomes. However, substantial methodological heterogeneity in primary study designs and MBIs protocols across reviews limited definitive conclusions. Critically, AMSTAR-2 assessments revealed that the majority (11 of 15, 73 %) of included reviews were of critically low methodological quality, with the remainder rated as low quality.

Conclusion

While MBIs show potential to foster improved sports performance and mental health in athletes, the current evidence base is considerably weakened by the poor methodological quality of existing systematic reviews. A pressing need exists for future research to employ more rigorous methodologies, standardised intervention protocols, and consistent outcome reporting to establish a robust evidence base for the application of MBIs in sports.

1. Introduction

Mindfulness, defined as nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment, is increasingly recognised as the alternative to traditional psychological skills training (PST) for enhancing sports performance, mindfulness indicators, and mental health outcomes.¹ Elite athletes need coping strategies as they regularly face intense pressures, such as anxiety and emotional challenges, which demand resilient coping strategies.^2,3 While PST has long been used to enhance confidence and reduce anxiety,⁴ systematic reviews reveal inconsistent evidence of its effectiveness, often due to heterogeneous methodologies.^5,6 Critiques suggest PST lacks a cohesive framework, with techniques like imagery or relaxation sometimes failing to address the athletes complex needs.⁷ Ironic process theory⁸ and reinvestment theory⁹ indicate that PST may inadvertently impair performance by overloading cognitive resources. In response, third-wave approaches, such as acceptance and commitment therapy and the mindfulness–acceptance–commitment (MAC) method,^10,11 emphasise accepting internal experiences to promote goal-directed behaviour. Sport-based MBIs, including the MAC approach and mindful sports performance enhancement (MSPE), have been developed to address athletes' anxiety and emotional control.^12,13 Pioneered by Jon Kabat-Zinn's work with the American canoeing team in the 1980s,^7,14 MBIs cultivate psychological flexibility by fostering an observing self that acknowledges thoughts and emotions without excessive attachment.¹⁵ Structured techniques, such as mindful breathing and body scanning, are integrated into programmes like the MAC approach and mindfulness meditation training for sport.¹⁶ This paper investigates whether MBIs provide a more unified and effective framework that PST for enhancing performance and well-being in competitive sports.

MBIs show promise in enhancing concentration, reducing stress, and promoting emotional balance in various sporting contexts.^16,17 Emerging evidence from controlled trials and observational studies indicates that MBIs improve both physical and psychological aspects of sports performance, with significant improvement in focus and decision-making, and reductions in anxiety.^18,19 Unlike traditional PST, which often focuses on controlling thoughts, MBIs emphasise nonjudgmental awareness and acceptance to foster psychological flexibility.²⁰ By integrating acceptance-based approach with PST technique like goal setting, MBIs can enhance athlete preparation, emotional resilience, and performance.⁷ Systematic reviews suggest MBIs may address athletes’ diverse needs more effectively than PST, which has shown inconsistent performance benefits in reviews of 30 interventions.21, 22, 23 However, recent meta-analyses of MBIs highlight methodological limitations, including small sample sizes and heterogeneous study designs.^24,25 Similarly, an analysis of 111 PST studies identified challenges in measuring objective performance outcomes and drawing conclusions.²⁶ Variations in MBIs programme design, participant characteristics, and outcome measures contribute to fragmented findings. Consequently, future research should prioritise rigorous methodologies, such as such as randomised controlled trials and standardised protocols, to establish causal relationships, minimise biases, and clarify MBIs efficacy across specific sporting contexts.²⁵

The fragmented nature of current research on sport-based MBIs underscores the need for a comprehensive synthesis to evaluate their strengths, limitations, and practical implications across diverse competitive contexts.²⁵ An umbrella review, which consolidates findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, offers a robust method to assess intervention efficacy, identifying methodological weaknesses, and highlight research gaps.^22,27 This approach is particularly relevant for MBIs, given variations in program design and outcome measures.^28,29 The present umbrella review systematically examines MBIs impact on sports performance (research question; RQ1: How do MBIs effect sports performance?), mindfulness indicators (e.g., attentional control, emotional regulation; RQ2: How do MBIs affect mindfulness indicators?) and mental health (RQ3: How do MBIs influence mental health outcomes?) outcomes. It also evaluates publication bias and methodological quality to ensure reliable findings. By synthesizing relevant studies, this review aims to elucidate the mechanisms and contexts in which MBIs most effectively enhance athletes’ well-being and competitive performance. The findings will provide actionable recommendations for coaches, practitioners, and policymakers to guide the integration of MBIs into performance enhancement strategies, as well as inform future research to address methodological limitations, such as inconsistent outcome measures or small sample sizes.²⁵

2. Methods

This umbrella review adhered to the PERSiST guidelines (Guidelines for Implementing PRISMA in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport Medicine, and SporTs Science³⁰) and the PRIOR statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews³¹) to ensure methodological rigor and transparency tailored to sport science. These frameworks guided key stages, including literature search, study screening, and data synthesis, as detailed in Supplementary Table 1. To minimise reporting bias, the review protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; CRD42023411328). A preliminary scoping assessment of major databases (PROSPERO, JBI Evidence Synthesis, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) confirmed the originality of the research question and endure no overlapping reviews on sport-based MBIs.

2.1. Search strategy

This umbrella review sought to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine the influence of MBIs on sports performance, mindfulness indicators and mental health outcomes. To ensure consistency, controlled terms (standardised subject headings or indexing terminology) were used by each database to classify articles under predefined labels. For example, medical subject headings (MeSH) were applied in PubMed, while analogous controlled vocabularies (thesauri) were employed in Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, and ScienceDirect to maintain a uniform focus on mindfulness, sports performance, sports, and mental health. These official headings were supplemented with free-text terms (e.g., mindful, meditation, mental well-being) in titles, abstracts, and keywords, combined using Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) to identify studies not yet indexed under standardised headings. For instance, PubMed searches used the string “[mindfulness][MeSH] OR mindful∗ OR meditation∗” AND “[sports performance][MeSH] OR sport∗ OR athlete∗” AND “anxiety OR stress OR [mental health][MeSH] OR burnout”, with adaptations to align with each database's syntax. Validated filters for systematic reviews and meta-analyses ensured precision, while the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched for its rigour. Backward reference checks and forward citation tracking in Web of Science along with grey literature searches in Google Scholar (first 200 results) and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global minimised publication bias and enhanced comprehensiveness. Limiting search to English-language articles may restrict generalisability. A detailed summary of the search strategy, including keywords and Boolean connectors, is presented in Supplementary Table 2.

2.2. Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria for the study were established a priori using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design (PICOS) framework, a widely recognised standard for structuring eligibility criteria in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.³² Inclusion and exclusion criteria were recorded in Supplementary Table 3.

2.2.1. Population

Athletic populations refer to individuals regularly participating in organised sports activities that include formal training or recognised competitive events (e.g., at least one structured practice session per week). Reviews were included if they analysed athletic populations over the entire performance spectrum, from recreational to elite athletes, without constraints on age or gender. Reviews focusing on non-athletic demographics (e.g., students, military people, those in vocational environments) were excluded, even if physical activity was a component of their routine, because their primary context and performance outcomes were not aligned with the focus on sports performance and mental health.

2.2.2. Intervention

Eligible studies comprise structured mindfulness-based programs. The techniques included mindful breathing exercises, body scan meditation, mindful movement techniques, sport-specific mindfulness applications, mindfulness-integrated yoga, and compassion-focused mindfulness activities. Interventions without any mindfulness element, such as general relaxation methods, conventional PST, ordinary physical exercise regimens, or mental imagery, were excluded.

2.2.3. Comparator

No limitations were imposed on comparators. Reviews were incorporated irrespective of the utilisation of wait-list controls, active control groups, standard therapy, or the lack of a control condition.

2.2.4. Outcome

Eligible reviews were required to report on sports performance (e.g., direct indicators such as competition results or performance statistics; and related surrogate measures such as physiological parameters or technical execution assessments), mindfulness indicators, and mental health outcomes (e.g., competitive anxiety, sport-specific stress, psychological well-being).

2.2.5. Study design

Only systematic reviews and meta analyses that met the Cochrane collaboration's guidelines were included, whether or not they had meta-analyses.³³ In line with these guidelines, reviewers were required to clearly state their objectives, set inclusion criteria a priori, employ systematic search strategies, perform rigorous validity checks, and maintain organised records. Scoping reviews, rapid reviews, narrative reviews, literature reviews without systematic methodology, editorial commentaries, opinion pieces, conference proceedings, and publications containing only abstracts were excluded because they did not fulfil the standards required for systematic review classification.

2.3. Study selection

All retrieved citations were imported into EndNote X21 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA). After removing duplicates, three reviewers (BY, SM, and CN) independently screened titles and abstracts using the Rayyan platform (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha, Qatar), which supports blinded screening and thereby enhances selection objectivity. Full text of potentially eligible studies were then assessed by the same reviewers against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. To ensure thorough coverage, the lists of the included systematic reviews were scrutinised manually to detect any additional records not located by the electronic database search. Common inconsistencies typically involved disagreements about whether a study met eligibility criteria, such as population or intervention relevance. In such cases, the two reviewers first discussed their perspectives; if no consensus emerged, the third reviewer was consulted to finalise the decision. All discrepancies were recorded, and a concluding agreement was achieved following these discussions.

2.4. Data extraction

Three reviewers (BY, SM, and CN) separately extracted data using a standardised form developed for this review, which was initially tested on a small sample of studies to refine data fields and ensure consistency. Discrepancies in retrieved data were recorded and resolved through discussion; if consensus was not reached, a third reviewer was consulted. Bibliometric details (e.g., primary author, publication year) were extracted to trace the chronological distribution of evidence. Methodological frameworks (e.g., PRISMA and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2; AMSTAR-2 ³⁴) guided the extraction and quality assessment processes, which differentiate between systematic reviews and those including meta-analyses, while capturing each review's primary aims and scope to contextualise its focus. Methodological aspects (e.g., number and design of included trials) and participant characteristics (e.g., sample size and demographic profiles) were collected to evaluate evidence quality and generalisability. Outcome measures encompassing performance- and health-related indicators were recorded to reflect the breadth of analysed variables. Quality assessment methods and their corresponding ratings were documented to examine the rigour of each review, and key findings on the effectiveness of MBIs in sporting contexts were summarised for more comprehensive analysis.

2.5. Quality assessment

The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was examined using an 16-item AMSTAR-2 ³⁴, a validated tool for evaluating reviews of randomised and non-randomised studies. It encompasses critical domains (e.g., protocol registration, risk-of-bias evaluation) and non-critical domains (e.g. report clarity) to guide the evaluation of key methodological areas, including literature search thoroughness, study exclusion justification, and appropriateness of meta-analytic methods. One of four quality levels (high, moderate, low, or critically low) were assigned for each domain using the criteria outlined in Supplementary Table 2. Three independent reviewers (BY, SM, and CN) followed official user guide of AMSTAR-2 to ensure consistency and mitigate subjectivity. Disagreements were resolved through discussion between the first two reviewers, with the remaining reviewer consulted if consensus was not reached.

2.6. Quality of evidence

The evidence level for each outcome measure was assessed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system,³⁵ adapted to accommodate the synthesis of meta-analyses. The core GRADE elements, including risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, guided the evaluation. with modifications to prioritise meta-analytic rigour (e.g., weighting effect size consistency over individual study designs). The reliability of findings depended on the methodological quality of primary studies, result consistency evidence directness, effect estimate precision, and publication bias indicators, such as asymmetrical funnel plots. Limitations, including significant unexplained heterogeneity (e.g. varying MBIs protocol) or indirectness of populations (e.g. non-elite athletes), prompted re-evaluation of initial confidence levels. Wide confidence intervals or clinically relevant thresholds also led to downgrading, with each meta-analysis initially rated high but potentially lowered to moderate, low, or critically low based on the severity of identified issues. Three reviewers (BY, SM and CN) independently applied these criteria and resolved discrepancies through discussion and consensus.

2.7. Overlap calculation

To assess the degree of primary research overlap among the included systematic reviews, the corrected covered area (CCA) methodology was employed. This approach quantifies how frequently the same primary studies appear across multiple reviews,³⁶ calculated as CCA = (n − r)/(r × c) − r, where n represents the total number of primary studies (including duplicates), r is the number of included reviews, and c is the number of unique primary studies. CCA values range from slight overlap (0–5 %) to very high overlap (>15 %). When substantial overlap was identified, pooled results were interpreted cautiously to avoid evidence inflation or bias, with sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the impact on outcomes.

2.8. Synthesis of results

Narrative synthesis was used to address the research questions (RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3) of the study, following established guidance on integrating qualitative and quantitative findings.37, 38, 39, 40 This approach was deemed suitable given the limited number of eligible systematic reviews, the mixed nature of analyses, and notable heterogeneity in study designs, intervention protocols, and outcome measures. Findings were organised by sports performance (RQ1), mindfulness indicators (RQ2), and mental health outcomes (RQ3), presented in tabular and narrative formats with effect sizes, confidence intervals, and p-values. This flexible method enabled a nuanced synthesis of patterns, gaps, and trends while acknowledging methodological constraints. The synthesis for RQ1 focused on sports performance, examining outcomes such as objective performance measures and physiological performance. For RQ2, the analysis addressed mindfulness indicators, including mindfulness itself, flow, attentional control, and emotional regulation. Finally, the synthesis for RQ3 covered mental health outcomes, such as competitive anxiety, stress, burnout, and psychological well-being.

3. Result

3.1. Study selection

A total of 148 studies were identified through electronic database searches with a further 74 identified via manual checks. Removal of 49 duplicates left 173 records, from which 122 were excluded based on title and abstract screening. The remaining 51 full-text articles were assessed against the pre-established eligibility criteria, resulting in 15 systematic reviews for final inclusion. The selection process was illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1), with reasons for exclusions detailed in Supplementary Table 2.

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow chart.

3.2. Characteristics of included reviews

The included reviews (n = 15) comprised eight systematic reviews,^25,41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 three systematic reviews with meta-analyses,47, 48, 49 and four meta-analyses,^18,24,50,51 published between 2015 and 2024, with 12 (80 %) appearing after 2019. These reviews involving 10,503 athletic participants across diverse disciplines, including individual sports (e.g., track and field, shooting) and team sports (e.g., basketball, football), with sample sizes ranged from 24 to 2471. The number of included trials varied from 4 to 66, spanning publication years from 1976 to 2023. Approximately half of these trials (131/258) were randomised controlled trials. Most reviews evaluated MBIs, primarily MAC, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), mindfulness performance enhancement, and mixed mindfulness protocols. Detailed characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Authors, year, type of reviews	Objective	Population	Included studies	Outcomes and effect size	Summary of Findings
Sappington, 2015, SR	To assess (a) the efficacy of MBIs approaches in enhancing sports performance; and (b) the methodological quality of research conducted thus far.	n = 311 any types of athletes	k = 19 4 RCTs; 7 nRCTs; 6 case studies; and 2 qualitative studies	(1) Objective measures of performance (+) (2) Competitive anxiety (+) (4) Mindfulness (+) (5) Flow (+)	(a) MBIs improves performance and reduces anxiety. (b) Small and typically non-randomised studies provide limited evidence; robust RCTs are needed.
Bühlmayer, 2017, MA	To determine how mindfulness practice alters (a) athletes' dispositional mindfulness; (b) physiological performance surrogates; (c) psychological performance surrogates; and (d) objective sport-performance outcomes.	n = 290 athletes (age >15)	k = 9 6 RCTs and 3 nRCTs	(1) Mindfulness (SMD = 1.03; 90 % CI = 0.67, 1.40; p = 0.001; I2 = 17 %) (2) Physiological performance (SMD = 3.62; 90 % CI = 0.03, 7.21; p = 0.10; I2 = 98 %) (3) Psychological performance (SMD = 0.72; 90 % CI = 0.46, 0.98; p = 0.001; I2 = 14 %) (4) Performance indices (SMD = 1.35; 90 % CI = 0.61, 2.09; p = 0.003; I2 = 82 %).	(a) Mindfulness: Large increase (SMD ≈ 1.0). (b) Physiological performance: Very large but inconsistent improvements (SMD ≈ 3.6; high heterogeneity). (c) Psychological performance: Moderate and consistent benefits (SMD ≈ 0.7). (d) Performance outcomes: Large gains in precision sports (shooting/darts), but evidence is preliminary due to few, small studies.
Carraca, 2018, SR	To summarise empirical evidence on the effectiveness of MBIs (mainly MAC & MSPE) for enhancing performance in elite athletes.	n = 713 elite athletes	k = 26 7 RCTs; 5 nRCTs; and 14 other types of studies	(1) Mindfulness (+) (2) Flow (+)	10 of the 26 studies show MBIs (8 MAC & 2 MSPE) improve performance, but small and heterogeneous trials with insufficient controls restrict conclusions.
Corbally, 2019, SR	To assess in distance runners the impact of MBIs on (a) mindfulness scores; (b) physiological performance-related factors; (c) psychological performance-related factors; and (d) running performance.	n = 235 athletes (age >16) participate distance running	k = 6 3 RCTs; 2 nRCTs; and 1 cohort study	(1) Immune function (+) (2) Effort perception (−) (3) Mindfulness (∗) (4) Competitive Anxiety (−) (5) Performance (∗)	(a) Mindfulness: Minimal and inconsistent gains; trait mindfulness largely unchanged. (b) Physiology: Sparse data; one RCT showed decreased post-exercise immune response, other results are mixed or null. (c) Psychology: Low-to-moderate anxiety reductions; limited evidence for other mental factors. (d) Performance: Time-trial results are inconsistent and low-quality; no performance advantage shown. Overall evidence is low, requiring rigorous RCTs
Noetel, 2019, SR	To systematically review the evidence for mindfulness and experiential acceptance approaches in the sporting domain.	n = 3908 any types of athletes	k = 66 17 RCTs; 14 nRCTs; 12 studies did not have control groups; and 21 observational studies	(1) Mindfulness (effect sizes ranged from very low to very high) (2) Flow (effect sizes ranged from small to very large). (3) Anxiety (effect sizes ranged from moderate or large) (4) Performance (∗)	Mindfulness and acceptance may boost awareness, flow, and performance while reducing anxiety, but evidence is limited.
Li, 2019, SRMA	(a) Quantify the association between dispositional mindfulness and athlete burnout; (b) evaluate whether MBIs prevent burnout.	n = 385 any types of athletes	k = 10 2 controlled trials; 6 surveys; and 2 interview studies	(1) Mindfulness and global burnout (r = −0.42; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −0.50, −0.33; I2 = 0 %) (2) Mindfulness and reduced sense of accomplishment (r = −0.29; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −0.33, −0.24; I2 = 0 %) (3) Mindfulness and emotional/physical exhaustion (r = −0.33; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −0.42, −0.24; I2 = 63.82 %) (4) Mindfulness and sport devaluation (r = −0.28; p < 0.01; 95 % CI = −0.35, −0.21; I2 = 58.19 %)	(a) Meta-analysis (8 surveys) shows a small-to-moderate negative correlation between mindfulness and global burnout. (b) Two small and controlled trials and two interviews suggest MBIs may ease burnout symptoms, but methodological quality is weak, and evidence judge insufficient.
Tierney, 2020, SR	To examine (a) the effects of MBIs on athletes' emotional distress and well-being; (b) the differences in outcomes between athletes and non-athletes; and (c) the varying results of sport-specific versus generic MBIs.	n = 387 any types of athletes	k = 13 6 RCTs; 1 nRCTs; 1 quasi-experimental studies; 1 intervention comparison studies (i.e. mindfulness vs PST); 1 case studies; and 3 pilot studies	(1) Stress (+) (2) Eating disorder (+) (3) Substance abuse (+) (4) Depression (∗) (5) Anxiety (∗) (6) Mindfulness (∗) (7) Psychological well-being (∗)	(a) Current results indicate no consistent improvements in overall wellbeing or distress, but MBIs may reduce sport-specific anxiety and tension in some studies. (b) Lack of comparative evidence makes athlete-non-athlete differences unclear. (c) Limited evidence base and varying quality, with no clear preference for sport-specific protocols over generic ones.
Canadell, 2021, SR	To identify the mindfulness- and acceptance-based interventions implemented in the context of chess and to examine their effects on performance and psychological variables potentially relevant to performance.	n = 35 chess players	k = 4 3 nRCTs and 1 case studies	(1) Objective measure performance (+) (2) Experiential avoidance (∗)	Brief acceptance and commitment therapy interventions enhance chess performance and reduce adverse reactions to private events; experiential avoidance is key.
Kim, 2021, SR	To investigate (a) test whether meditation boosts athletic performance; (b) appraise study quality; (c) sketch possible mechanisms.	n = 241 over 15 years of age physically fit adolescents and adults engaged in the specific field of sport	k = 6 6 RCTs	(1) Physiological factors (+) (2) Psychological performance factors (+) (3) Sport performance indicator (+)	(a) Generally positive performance-related changes across soccer, shooting, etc. (b) All trials carried “high” risk of bias on ≥ 4 Cochrane domains; samples are small and controls often inadequate. (c) Review links benefits to imagery rehearsal, relaxation, and self-talk pathways.
Mohammed, 2021, SR	To determine MBSR effects on psychological demands during injury rehabilitation.	N/A	k = 9 7 RCTs and 2 mixed methods	(1) Pain tolerance/management (+) (2) Psychological distress (+) (3) Mindfulness (+)	The mixed designs studies suggest MBSR improve pain-tolerance, stress, anxiety and help athletes accept injury.
Myall, 2022, SRMA	To determine the effectiveness of mindfulness-based programmes on the mental health of elite athletes.	n = 613 elite athletes	k = 12 12 RCTs	(1) Overall mental health (g = −0.75; k = 9; p < 0.001; 95 % CI = −1.06, −0.45; I2 = 81 %) (2) Symptoms of anxiety (g = −0.87; k = 6; p = 0.017; 95 % CI = −0.16, −1.59; I2 = 90 %) (3) Symptoms of depression (g = −0.90; k = 3; p = 0.13; 95 % CI = −2.05, 0.25; I2 = 90 %) (4) Psychological distress (g = −40; k = 4; p < 0.001, 95 % CI = −0.61, −0.18; I2 = 0 %) (5) Stress (g = −0.91, k = 5, p = 0.012, 95 % CI = −0.20, −1.61; I2 = 74 %) (6) Psychological well-being (g = 0.96, k = 5, p = 0.039, 95 % CI = 0.05, 1.86; I2 = 89 %) (7) Mindfulness (g = 0.62; k = 10; p = 0.003; 95 % CI = 0.22, 1.03; I2 = 73 %)	Large reductions in anxiety and stress, but improvement on psychological well-being.
Kanaujia, 2023, MA	To assess yoga or mindfulness effects on stress, anxiety, and performance proxies.	n = 576 any types of athletes	k = 15 7 RCTs; 8 nRCTs	(1) Mindfulness [Z = 4.13; p < 0.01; I2 = 48 %] (2) State mindfulness∗ [Z = 1.51; p = 0.13; I2 = 25 %] (3) Acceptance∗ [Z = 0.43; p = 0.67; I2 = 0 %] (4) Flow [Z = 9.49; p < 0.01; I2 = 85 %] (5) Stress [Z = 6.56; p < 0.01; I2 = 76 %] (6) Anxiety∗ [Z = 1.62; p = 0.11; I2 = 14 %]	Significant gains in mindfulness (SMD = −2.6), flow (SMD = 3.13) and lowered stress (SMD = −0.74); no clear effect on competitive anxiety or attention/acceptance.
Ptacek, 2023, MA	To explore the effectiveness of the MAC protocol in improving mindfulness, and psychological flexibility, and enhancing sports performance and well-being among athletes.	n = 517 any types of athletes	k = 11 10 RCTs; 1 nRCT	(1) Mindfulness (g = 0.64, 95 % CI = 0.00, 0.91) (2) Psychological flexibility (g = 0.36, 95 % CI = 0.00, 0.92) (3) Sports performance (g = 0.37, 95 % CI = 0.00, 0.79) (4) Well-being (g = 0.82, 95 % CI = −0.15, 1.79)	MAC enhances mindfulness and performance, but evidence for psychological flexibility, acceptance, and well-being is insufficient.
Wang, 2023, SRMA	To determine how MBIs influence (a) athletic performance; (b) athletes' mindfulness level; (c) mindfulness-related psychological components (e.g., acceptance, self-compassion, flow); and (d) mental-health outcomes.	n = 1788 any types of athletes	k = 32 32 RCTs	(1) Objectively or subjectively measured athletic performance (+) (2) The mindfulness level (SMD = 0.50; 95 % CI = 0.17, 0.83; p = 0.003; I2 = 45 %) (3) Mindfulness-related psychological components (SMD = 0.81; 95 % CI = 0.53,1.10; p < 0.001; I2 = 77 %) (4) Mental health indicators (SMD = −0.03; 95 % CI = −0.35, 0.29; p = 0.85; I2 = 89 %)	(a) Narrative synthesis showed consistent performance improvements. (b) Moderate mindfulness enhanced (SMD = 0.50). (c) Significant psychological improvement (SMD = 0.81). (d) No significant impact on mental health indicators (SMD = −0.03).
Wang, 2024, MA	To quantify (a) the pooled effect of MBPs on athletes' competitive anxiety; (b) whether effects differ by moderators such as country, competitive level, MBP duration, type, sport, age, and gender; and (c) the specific impact on cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence.	n = 504 any types of athletes	k = 20 14 RCTs; 6 nRCTs	(1) Competitive anxiety (g = −0.67; 95 % CI = −0.92, −0.42; p < 0.01) Subgroups: (2) Cognitive anxiety (g = −0.76; 95 % CI = −1.32, −0.19; I2 = 70.3 %) (3) Somatic anxiety (g = −0.84; 95 % CI = −1.26, −0.42; I2 = 51.6 %) (4) Self-confidence (g = 0.45; 95 % CI = 0.15, 0.75; I2 = 14.9 %)	(a) MBPs reduced competitive anxiety with a medium-to-large effect (g = −0.67 after removing outliers). (b) Benefits are stable across MBP type, sport, age, gender; larger for non-Western samples, higher-level athletes, and programs >7 weeks.

Note. (+) positive effect; (−) negative effect (∗) inconsistent effect. Abbreviation. SR = systematic reviews; SRMA = systematic reviews with meta-analyses; MA = meta-analyses; MBIs = mindfulness-based interventions; RCTs = randomised controlled trials; nRCTs = nonrandomized controlled trials; MAC = mindfulness–acceptance–commitment; MSPE = mindful sports performance enhancement; MBSR = mindfulness-based stress reduction; SMD = standardised mean difference.

3.3. Overlap of primary studies

Fig. 2 visualises the frequency with which the same primary research articles appear in multiple systematic reviews (SRs). After an initial pool of 148 relevant primary studies from the 15 included SRs were identified, additional studies emerged during data extraction (e.g., due to variant publication references or updates of the same trials), resulting in a total of 248 distinct entries. To quantify the extent to which these 248 entries overlap across reviews, the CCA — a commonly used metric in umbrella reviews—was applied. CCA was calculated by comparing the number of shared primary studies among the reviews (i.e., those appearing more than once) with the total number of references and the total number of reviews. In this instance, a CCA value of 4.83 % indicates that only a small fraction of primary studies was cited by more than one systematic review, implying minimal redundancy across the included reviews. A high CCA (i.e.i.e., ≥15 %) would suggest that many of the same primary studies were repeatedly analysed across different reviews, potentially inflating the perceived evidence or biasing the overall conclusions. By contrast, the low CCA observed here implies that each review contributed relatively unique studies, thus broadening the evidence base and increasing confidence that the findings were not disproportionately influenced by a single set of primary sources.

Fig. 2.

Overlapping of primary studies included in systematic reviews.

3.4. Methodological quality of included review

Of the 15 systematic reviews, 11 (73 %) were deemed as critically low quality, and 4 (27 %) were categorised as low quality. Notably, all critically low quality publications were systematic reviews, while low quality publications included systematic review and meta-analysis or meta-analysis. Although most reviews adhered to standards such as independent study selection and data extraction, several AMSTAR-2 criteria were inadequately addressed, including the use of predefined protocols, justification of included study designs, listing and justifying excluded studies, and reporting funding sources for primary studies.

3.5. Quality of the evidence

The 15 included reviews revealed significant methodological limitations, 11 were rated critically low quality, two low quality, two moderate quality, and one high quality. Critically low compliance was observed across several criteria, including item 10 (reporting funding sources; 0 %; n = 0), item 7 (listing/justifying excluded studies; 6.7 %; n = 1), item 2 (a priori protocol; 26.7 %; n = 4), item 15 (assessing publication bias; 26.7 %; n = 4), item 3 (justifying study design; 33.3 %; n = 5), item 14 (explaning heterogeneity; 40 %; n = 6), item 12 (assess the risk of bias impact on meta-analysis; 40 %; n = 6), and item 11 (appropriate meta-analytic methods; 46.7 %; n = 7). Full AMSTAR-2 ratings are provided in the Supplementary Table 4.

3.6. Summary of evidence

3.6.1. Overview

This section summarizes evidence addressing RQ1 (sports performance), RQ2 (mindfulness Indicators), and RQ3 (mental health outcomes). A total of twelve reviews primarily examined sports performance, with seven reporting outcomes such as competitive anxiety (n = 5), flow states (n = 4), and psychological flexibility (n = 6), assessed via objective metrics or self-reported measures. Eleven reviews evaluated mindfulness indicators, such as nonjudgmental awareness and acceptance, generally supporting MBIs ability to enhance mindfulness capacity. However, variability in intervention protocols and measurement tools hinders direct comparisons. Six reviews centred on mental health outcomes, which address positive constructs like psychological well-being (n = 3) and negative outcomes, including stress (n = 2), anxiety (n = 2), psychological distress (n = 2), burnout (n = 1), and depression (n = 2).

3.6.2. Sports performance

This section addresses RQ1, which examines how MBIs affect sports performance. Fifteen systematic reviews, including eight focused on sports performance across disciplines like basketball, football, running and precision tasks (e.g., shooting, darts), reported benefits in physical and psychological domains.^25,41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 Two reviews highlighted gains in running speed, agility and reaction time, while one noted faster recovery and return-to-play among rehabilitating athletes.43, 44, 45 Two others identified improved fine motor control, though gross motor outcomes were less consistent.^25,46 A systematic review on chess found that acceptance and commitment interventions significantly improved chess performance, as evidenced by increased rating scores.⁴¹ Enhanced flow states, reduced competition anxiety, and lower burnout were also reported and potentially boosting performance.^42,47 Four meta-analyses provided quantitative support.^19,24,49,50 One reported physiological gains, such as increased maximal oxygen uptake,²⁴ though not significant due to protocol variability (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 3.62; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.03, 7.21; p = 0.10; I² = 98 %), including increases in maximal oxygen uptake and immune responses.²⁴ Another meta-analysis identified a small effect size for improvements in sports performance⁵¹ particularly in precision sports (g = 0.37; 95 % CI = 0.00, 0.79). A third found gains in specific tasks, like basketball free-throw accuracy and football performance (SMD = 0.50; 95 % CI = 0.17, 0.83; I² = 45 %).¹⁹ The final meta-analysis highlighted large improvements in fine motor skills (SMD = 1.35; 95 % CI = 0.61, 2.09; p = 0.003; I² = 82 %).⁴⁹

3.6.3. Mindfulness indicators

The RQ2 was addressed on examining the impact of MBIs on mindfulness indicators. Nine systematic reviews and five meta-analyses revealed improvements in attentional control, emotional regulation and cognitive flexibility.^25,41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47^,52 Evidence suggests MBIs foster self-awareness, reduce automatic responses, and bolster concentration during performance.^42,46 One review found that athletes engaging in MBIs enhanced self-regulation and emotional stability, supporting better decision-making under pressure,⁴² while another reported that MBIs strengthen attentional control and reduced cognitive interference, helping athletes focus in competitive contexts.²⁵ Meta-analyses provide statistical support one reported a larger increase in mindfulness indicators (SMD = 1.03; 95 % CI = 0.67, 1.40; Z = 4.66; p < 0.00001; I² = 17 %),²⁴ while another found significant improvements in cognitive capacities, a key facet of mindfulness ([MD] = −2.6; 95 % CI = −3.85, −1.37; Z = 4.13, p < 0.0001, I² = 48 %).⁵⁰ A third demonstrated a medium-to-large enhancement in cognitive flexibility (g = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.53, 1.10; I² = 77 %).¹⁸ Two other studies reported moderate effects on overall mindfulness indicators, with one meta-analysis finding an effect of g = 0.64 (95 % CI = 0.00, 0.91), and another reporting an SMD of 0.62 (95 % CI = 0.22, 1.03).^48,51

3.6.4. Mental health outcomes

To address RQ3, this section synthesizes evidence on a broad spectrum of mental health outcomes. The analysis examines how MBIs contribute to both the reduction of negative states, such as competitive anxiety and psychological distress, and the enhancement of positive states, including the experience of flow, psychological well-being, and resilience.

3.6.4.1. Competitive anxiety

Six systematic reviews and four meta-analyses have investigated the impact of MBIs on competitive anxiety in athletes, consistently reporting reductions in both cognitive and somatic dimensions.^18,24,25,42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 Some reviews highlight notable decreases in pre-competition worry, fear of failure and overall stress, particularly in settings that demand heightened focus and mental resilience.^24,43, 44, 45 One review noted that MBIs lower cognitive anxiety and help athletes remain present, thereby supporting performance under pressure.²⁵ Another documented significant declines in sport-specific anxiety, with the strongest effects observed among elite competitors.⁴⁷ Research on meditation programmes found that CSAI-2–measured cognitive anxiety dropped significantly, while investigations involving injured athletes showed that mindfulness-based stress reduction aids rehabilitation by lessening psychological stress and indirectly reinforcing competitive performance.^43,44 A further analysis reported moderate progress in anxiety regulation, highlighting the consistent impact of MBIs across diverse sports.²⁴ Two meta-analyses provide additional statistical evidence.^18,48 One identified a moderate-to-large decrease in competitive anxiety (g = −0.67; 95 % [CI] = −0.92, −0.42; p < 0.01), with higher-level athletes experiencing greater benefits than their lower-level counterparts.¹⁸ Subgroup results suggest that longer interventions (≥7 weeks) produce more substantial reductions in anxiety (g = −0.86) compared to shorter programmes (g = −0.56). Another meta-analysis showed a significant decline in general anxiety (SMD = −0.87; 95 % CI = −1.59, −0.16; I² = 90.09 %), again demonstrating particularly strong effects in elite cohorts.⁴⁸

3.6.4.2. Experiencing flow in sports

Six systematic reviews have examined the effects of MBIs on flow experiences, consistently demonstrating that they support athletes in accessing and maintaining this optimal psychological state across various sports.^25,41, 42, 43, 44^,46 These reviews suggest that mindfulness-based approaches foster attentional control, emotional balance and psychological immersion, key factors for achieving flow.^43,44,46 One investigation found that participants practising mindfulness reported greater focus on the present moment, reduced distractions and a sense of control in high-pressure conditions.⁴² Another highlighted the importance of sustained attention and emotional regulation for supporting peak performance within a flow state.²⁵ Further work indicates that meditation-based interventions enhance goal clarity and perceived control, while diminished anxiety may deepen immersion, promoting stronger flow experiences.^43,44,46 Although one study did not measure flow directly, observed improvements in psychological flexibility and the ability to manage internal thoughts and emotions may indirectly support immersion in high-level strategic tasks.⁴¹ Three meta-analyses reinforce these findings.^18,24,50 One reports a marked rise in flow experiences after MBIs use (SMD = 1.03; 95 % CI = 0.67, 1.40; Z = 4.66, p < 0.00001; I² = 17 %).²⁴ Another shows that athletes receiving MBIs were more likely to achieve deep flow states (SMD = 3.13; 95 % CI = 2.48, 3.77; Z = 9.49; p < 0.00001; I² = 85 %).⁵⁰ A further analysis reveals a medium-to-large positive effect on flow-related cognitive flexibility (g = 0.81; 95 % CI = 0.53, 1.10; I² = 77 %).¹⁸

3.6.4.3. Positive psychological outcomes

Eight systematic reviews explored how MBIs affect positive psychological outcomes in athletes, consistently indicating benefits for mental well-being, emotional regulation and resilience.^25,41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 This body of work suggests that MBIs meaningfully strengthen self-confidence, life satisfaction and overall mental health.^41,45,46 One analysis noted that athletes who practise MBIs develop stronger stress management and emotional control skills, resulting in more robust coping mechanisms.⁴² Another highlighted the role of MBIs in cultivating emotional resilience, allowing athletes to address both on-field and off-field demands more effectively.⁴⁷ Additional investigations reported increased self-efficacy in injured athletes undergoing mindfulness-based interventions, thereby advancing psychological recovery.²⁵ Further reviews emphasised improvements in dispositional optimism and other positive trait variables, while mindfulness-based stress reduction contributed to greater resilience and reduced pain sensitivity.^45,46 In other contexts, gains in psychological flexibility and the ability to manage internal thoughts and emotions appeared to support healthier mental states, while reductions in competitive anxiety and heightened state mindfulness boosted confidence under pressure.^41,43,44 Four meta-analyses corroborate these effects.^18,48,50,52 One observed a considerable rise in psychological well-being (SMD = 0.96; 95 % CI = 0.05, 1.86) with stronger results among elite athletes.⁴⁸ Another found that MBIs elevated self-confidence (g = 0.45; 95 % CI = 0.15, 0.75), especially at higher competitive levels.¹⁸ A further study revealed reductions in global burnout (r = −0.42; p < 0.01) and enhanced life satisfaction (r = 0.39; p < 0.01), underscoring mindfulness as a broad positive influence.⁵² Additional findings showed that MBIs significantly raise psychological flexibility (MD = 0.20; 95 % CI = −0.69, 1.08) and foster improved emotional regulation with diminished stress.⁵⁰

3.6.4.4. Negative psychological outcomes

Eight systematic reviews explored that MBIs can reduce psychological distress and promote emotional regulation.^25,41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 MBIs lowered cognitive and somatic anxiety, alleviated stress, and diminished burnout, especially among athletes under high-pressure demands or recovering from injuries.^25,42, 43, 44, 45, 46 One review reports a decline in race-related anxiety for distance runners, while another notes improvements in emotional resilience during rehabilitation.^43,45 MBIs also reduced sport-specific anxiety and moderate yet consistent drops in general distress, with task-focused attention and emotional stability mitigating burnout.^25,47 Short-term acceptance and commitment interventions may help athletes lessen experiential avoidance and improve internal event management.^41,42,44 Six meta-analyses reinforced these observations.^18,24,48,50, 51, 52 One reports a significant reduction in general anxiety (SMD = −0.87; 95 % CI = −1.59, −0.16; I² = 90.09 %), although high heterogeneity reflects varied athlete populations.⁴⁶ Another found a moderate-to-large effect in cognitive and somatic anxiety (g = −0.67; 95 % CI = −0.92, −0.42, p < 0.01), with longer interventions (>7 weeks; g = −0.86) producing more substantial stress relief (g = −0.86) than shorter programmes.¹⁸ MBIs also appear to reduce burnout, as indicated by a negative correlation between mindfulness and global burnout (r = −0.42, p < 0.01), emotional exhaustion (r = −0.33, p < 0.01) and sport devaluation (r = −0.28, p < 0.01).⁵² Another work shows improvements in psychological flexibility (MD = 0.20; 95 % CI = −0.69, 1.08) and a moderate drop in perceived stress (SMD = −0.74; 95 % CI = [−0.97, −0.52]; Z = 6.56; p < 0.00001), closely tied to reduced burnout and distress.^24,50 A separate analysis notes small but statistically meaningful decreases in overall stress and emotional strain, suggesting that MBIs help athletes cope with intense competitive demands.⁵¹

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of the overview

This umbrella review represents one of the first comprehensive efforts to consolidate systematic reviews and meta-analyses on MBIs in athletic contexts, which addresses sports performance (RQ1), mindfulness indicators (RQ2), and mental health outcomes (RQ3). Fifteen reviews, covering 258 primary studies, suggest MBIs enhance reaction time, motor coordination and endurance, while reducing competitive anxiety, stress and burnout.¹⁸ MBIs also improve cognitive flexibility, flow state, and psychological well-being.⁵⁰ However, these findings are tempered by notable methodological shortcomings. Many reviews rely on small samples, varied intervention protocols and inconsistent outcome measures, which is complicate to draw conclusions across sports.^25,42 High heterogeneity reflects diverse protocols and populations. The absence of adequately matched control groups and pre-registered protocols, as highlighted in AMSTAR-2 evaluations (11 of 15 reviews critically low quality), further limits reliability. Greater rigour in study design, standardised reporting, and diverse participant recruitment is essential to clarify MBIs effectiveness. These findings underscore MBIs’ potential to transform sport psychology practice and provide future research addresses these gaps to strengthen the evidence base.

4.2. MBIs and sports performance

This section discusses findings for RQ1 examining the impact of MBIs on sports performance. MBIs improve attentional control, enabling athletes to focus on sport-specific tasks crucial for performance, such as decision-making under pressure.⁴² Sport-specific mindfulness interventions improve task execution by fostering sustained attention,⁵³ aligning with prior findings on flow states.²⁵ Higher mindfulness levels also improve emotional regulation, supporting composure and optimal arousal during competitions, which boosts sports performance.¹⁹ These benefits align with Birrer et al.'s model,⁷ which posits that receptive attention skills enhance coping, recovery, and motivation. However, methodological limitations temper these findings. Many reviews rely on subjective metrics (self-report surveys or coach observations),^25,46,49,51 introducing potential bias and reflecting perceived satisfaction rather than objective performance.^54,55 Vague definitions of sports performance, conflating psychological and physiological metrics, further complicate interpretation.⁵⁴ The predominance of critically low quality reviews underscore these issues. Future studies should adopt standardised psychological and physiological performance, incorporating objective measures such as reaction time tests, heart rate variability for autonomic responses, and electroencephalography for attentional focus and cognitive engagement.⁵⁶ Advanced neuroimaging (e.g. functional MRI, near-infrared spectroscopy) could provide real-time insights into neural activation during sport-specific tasks, though cost and accessibility challenges require consideration.⁵⁶ These improvements will clarify MBIs role in enhancing sports performance and advance sport psychology research and practice.

4.3. MBIs and mindfulness indicators

This section addresses RQ2 and explores the effects of MBIs on mindfulness indicators. Synthesizing evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, MBIs consistently enhance mindfulness facets, including nonjudgmental awareness, acceptance, attentional control, emotional regulation, and cognitive flexibility.^24,25,48, 49, 50, 51 Meta-analyses highlighted a substantial gain in overall mindfulness, with significant improvements in cognitive flexibility.^24,48, 49, 50, 51 These align with theoretical propositions suggesting that mindful breathing and body scanning practices enhance athletes’ mental clarity through cultivating self-awareness and reducing automatic responses.⁷ Improved attentional control enables sustained focus in high-pressure competitions and supports sports performance,^25,44 while emotional regulation and cognitive flexibility promote adaptive coping and bridge to mental health benefits. Enhanced nonjudgmental awareness may also facilitate flow states.^25,50 However, substantial heterogeneity in intervention protocols (e.g., duration, delivery) and measurement tools across the primary studies complicates comparisons and contributes to variable effect sizes.⁴³ High mindfulness baseline levels in some athletes further attenuated gains. Future research should standardise definitions and measures of mindfulness indicators (e.g., decentring, self-compassion, non-reactivity) and investigate specific MBIs components (e.g., formal meditation, informal practice, sport-specific adaptations) to clarify the impact.^24,25,52 These advancements will strengthen the function of MBIs in improving mindfulness and performance.

4.4. MBIs and mental health outcomes

This section addresses RQ3 and examines the influence of MBIs on mental health outcomes in athletes. Findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate MBIs enhance emotional well-being, resilience, and self-esteem while reducing anxiety, stress, and burnout.^18,47,48,52 Mechanisms such as decentring, cognitive diffusion, and nonattachment contribute adaptive stress responses, enabling athletes to maintain composure and focus during competition.^57,58 Improved acceptance of internal experiences aids detachment from performance pressures, which promotes happiness and self-actualisation.⁴⁷ Meta-analysis findings decreases in anxiety, stress, and burnout. However, the meta-analysis conducted by Wang et al. revealed inconsistent effects on adverse mental health outcomes,⁴⁹ possibly due to short intervention durations or narrow outcome definitions.⁵⁹ Variability in protocols, participant characteristics (e.g., elite vs. amateur), and mental health constructs (e.g., stress vs. resilience) contributes to high heterogeneity.^48,49 While anxiety and stress are frequently examined in MBIs, other mental health outcomes, including burnout symptoms and self-esteem, were also affected.^47,52 Further research should incorporate comprehensive assessments capturing emotional distress, burnout dimensions, and well-being by standardising definitions of mental health outcomes to clarify the effects of MBIs.

4.5. Summary of evidence quality

This umbrella review evaluated 15 systematic reviews of MBIs in sports context, with AMSTAR-2 scorings indicating predominantly low to critically low quality (11 critically low, 2 low, 2 moderate, 1 high). Common deficiencies included failure to report reasons for excluded studies and funding sources, which contributed to downgraded ratings. Most reviews relied exclusively on systematic review techniques, potentially elevating bias compared those incorporating meta-analyses. Methodological quality is typically assessed using the PRISMA guidelines for reporting clarity and, increasingly, AMSTAR-2 for critical appraisal in umbrella reviews. AMSTAR-2 necessitates detailed reporting of items like protocol registration, but journal word count limits and restrictions on supplementary material often force authors to omit such details, not necessarily reflecting flawed execution. These methodological shortcomings temper confidence in findings for sports performance, mindfulness indicators, and mental health outcomes. Future reviews should align meticulously with AMSTAR-2 to ensure comprehensive reporting of excluded studies, justifications, and funding sources to enhance transparency. Incorporating meta-analyses where feasible and addressing practical constraints (e.g., small samples, inconsistent measures) will strengthen the evidence base for MBIs.

4.6. Strengths and limitations

This umbrella review of MBIs in sports context exhibits several methodological strengths. Adhered to PRIOR guidelines and a protocol registered with PROSPERO ensured procedural rigor, while rigorous screening by three independent reviewers (BY, SM and CN) targeted high-quality systematic reviews to reduce selection bias. The AMSTAR-2 tool guided quality appraisal of 15 reviews, and CCA calculations quantified primary studies overlap to minimise redundancy. Despite these strengths, several limitations warrant consideration. AMSTAR-2 ratings classified most reviews as low or critically low quality, due to absent protocols, incomplete reporting of excluded studies, and no funding source disclosures. Restricting to English-language systematic reviews featuring the keyword “mindfulness” may have precluded some relevant non-English publications, potentially overlooking cultural perspectives on MBIs. Excluding grey literature further limited access to unpublished data and emerging trends, which could reveal context-specific insights. Reliance on secondary data from reviews, without reanalysing primary study, risk perpetuating biases (e.g., inconsistent measures) and overlooks primary study nuances, influencing the interpretation of the overall evidence. Future studies should ensure transparent reporting to enhance rigor for MBIs in sport context.

5. Conclusion

This umbrella review underscores the potential of MBIs to enhance sports performance, mindfulness indicators, and mental health outcomes among athletes. Findings from 15 systematic reviews indicate improvements in attentional control, reductions in competitive anxiety and enhanced resilience, which benefit athletes across elite and amateur levels. Supported by mechanisms like decentring and emotional regulation, these outcomes encourage coaches, practitioners, and policymakers to integrate MBIs as an evidence-based addition to training systems. Further research should adopt more robust methods, including larger sample and matched control groups, and explore contextual factors (e.g., competition level and injury status) to optimise MBIs formats and durations. The advancement will enhance the role of MBIs in transforming sport psychology practices related to performance and well-being.

Authors' contributions

Boyuan Xie: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing; Siman Lei: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Project Administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing; Ngai Choi: Data Curation, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing; Siu Ming Choi: Methodology, Writing – review & editing; Xiuqiang Wang: Methodology, Writing – review & editing; Yiwen Chen: Project Administration, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the development of this manuscript, the authors employed ChatGPT to refine language and enhance clarity. Subsequently, the authors thoroughly reviewed and modified the text to ensure accuracy, and they accept full responsibility for the final content of this publication.

Declaration of competing interest

All authors confirm that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article: