Table 3.
Meta‐analysis of effect sizes in favour of MBI across all outcome measures for RCTs disaggregated by type of control group used
| k | Number of effect sizes | Total n | Intervention effects | z | p | Heterogeneity | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean effect size (d) | SE | 95% CI | Q value | p | I 2 | ||||||
| No contact | 11 | 68 | 1,501 | 0.10 | 0.03 | [.04 to .16] | 3.03 | <.01 | 209.32 | <.01 | 67.99 |
| Wait list | 8 | 33 | 578 | 0.38 | 0.07 | [.24 to .51] | 5.45 | <.01 | 83.11 | <.01 | 61.50 |
| Attention placebo | 11 | 92 | 1,136 | 0.15 | 0.03 | [.09 to .22] | 4.65 | <.01 | 263.47 | <.01 | 65.46 |
| Active intervention | 9 | 45 | 813 | 0.26 | 0.06 | [.15 to .37] | 4.71 | <.01 | 124.18 | <.01 | 64.57 |
Gregoski, Barnes, Tingen, Harshfield, and Treiber (2011), Schonert‐Reichl et al. (2015), and Wright, Gregoski, Tingen, Barnes, and Treiber (2011) include both active and attention placebo controls; Atkinson and Wade (2015) include both no contact and active controls; Quach, Jastrowski Mano, and Alexander (2016) include both wait list and active controls.