to use the chapter as a basis for our work, of which we are immensely grateful. Many thanks to the Canadian Council on Learning for allowing the use of the list of Sources of Grey Literature. Campbell Library Methods papers The Campbell Library Methods Series comprises three types of publications: Methods Discussion Papers New or innovative ideas currently in development in the field of methodology, these papers are intended for discussion and do not represent official Campbell policy or guidance Methods Policy Notes Current Campbell Collaboration policy on specific methods for use in Campbell systematic reviews of intervention effects Methods Guides Guides on how to implement specific systematic review methods Disclaimer Campbell Collaboration Methods Discussion Papers are published to promote discussion of new and innovative methods in systematic reviews, making these approaches available to a broad audience. Papers are published as submitted by the authors. They are not subject to review or editing by the Campbell Collaboration. The views expressed are those of the authors, and may not be attributed to the Campbell Collaboration. Campbell Collaboration Methods Discussion Papers do not represent Campbell policy.

Co-registration This review is co-registered within both the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. A version of this review can also be found in the Cochrane Library. Keywords Contributions Karlsen conceived of the idea and commissioned the review. All reviewers were involved in planning the review. Smedslund wrote the methods section of the protocol. Karlsen and Smedslund wrote the background. Hammerstrøm developed the search strategy, performed the original searches and the final search in November 2010. All authors were involved with screening of studies. Smedslund and Berg did the risk of bias and data extraction. Berg and Smedslund graded the results. Smedslund did the analyses and wrote the results and discussion. Support/Funding Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Norway Potential Conflicts of Interest None.

Mind‐body interventions to manage stress‐related health problems are of widespread interest. One of the best known methods is mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR), and MBSR courses are now offered by health services, as well as in social and welfare settings. In this systematic review, we report on the effects of MBSR interventions on health, quality of life, and social functioning. From the more than 3,000 potentially relevant references identified in two extensive searches, we included 31 relevant studies with an overall total of 1,942 participants, each of whom had been randomised to receive MBSR or other treatment strategies (most often a waiting list control). We utilised all outcome data published in the selected studies using a new statistical method for calculating the effect size. This method addressed the problems presented by the interdependence of many measurements of outcomes. 26 of the 31 studies were identified as having data suitable for meta‐analysis. MBSR was found to have a moderate and consistent positive effect on mental health outcomes in both patients selected with somatic problems and with mild to moderate psychological problems, and among participants recruited from community settings. MBSR interventions improved outcomes measuring different aspects of personal development and quality of life. The effects on somatic health outcomes were somewhat smaller. No adverse effects were described. Few studies were found that evaluated the impact of MBSR on social functioning, such as the ability to work. Key messages Mind‐body interventions to manage stress‐related health problems are of widespread interest. One of the best known methods is mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR), and MBSR courses are now offered by health services, as well as in social and welfare settings. In this systematic review, we report on the effects of MBSR interventions on health, quality of life, and social functioning. From the more than 3,000 potentially relevant references identified in two extensive searches, we included 31 relevant studies with an overall total of 1,942 participants, each of whom had been randomised to receive MBSR or other treatment strategies (most often a waiting list control). We utilised all outcome data published in the selected studies using a new statistical method for calculating the effect size. This method addressed the problems presented by the interdependence of many measurements of outcomes. 26 of the 31 studies were identified as having data suitable for meta‐analysis. MBSR was found to have a moderate and consistent positive effect on mental health outcomes in both patients selected with somatic problems and with mild to moderate psychological problems, and among participants recruited from community settings. MBSR interventions improved outcomes measuring different aspects of personal development and quality of life. The effects on somatic health outcomes were somewhat smaller. No adverse effects were described. Few studies were found that evaluated the impact of MBSR on so...

Co-registration This review is co-registered within both the Cochrane and CampbellCollaborations. A version of this review can also be found in the Cochrane Library. KeywordsContributions Karlsen conceived of the idea and commissioned the review. All reviewers were involved in planning the review. Smedslund wrote the methods section of the protocol. Karlsen and Smedslund wrote the background. Hammerstrøm developed the search strategy, performed the original searches and the final search in November 2010. All authors were involved with screening of studies. Smedslund and Berg did the risk of bias and data extraction. Berg and Smedslund graded Motivational interviewing for substance abuse (Review)

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that children who display behavioral problems also tend to display low social competence. The relation does however vary according to type of behavior being measured, as well as demographic characteristics of the respondent. The present meta-analysis examined the correlation between different types of behavioral problems and social competence among children aged 3–13, and investigated possible moderators in this relation.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted for English language studies from January 2008 to January 2018 that reported correlations between three types of behavioral problems (i.e., externalizing behaviors, conduct problems, or aggression) and two types of social competence (i.e., social competence or social skills). The studies included reports from parents and teachers, or both as a dyad. The review included data from 54 independent studies and a total of 46,828 participants. Effect sizes were estimated using a random effects approach and moderator analyses between subsets of categorical variables were tested by the significant Q test.ResultsResults showed an overall correlation between behavioral problems and social competence of medium effect size (r = −.42, p < .01). Moderation analyses indicated no significant differences for different types of behavioral problems or social competence. However, a significant difference was found with regard to type of respondent; the correlation was significantly higher when both measures were reported by the same respondent (teacher or parent) compared to when measures were reported by parent-teacher as a dyad.ConclusionsFindings summarized and quantified a robust negative correlation between behavioral problems and social competence. The results indicate that intervention programs targeting problem behaviors in children would benefit from reducing behavioral problems and in concert, increase social competence to help children with emerging or present problem behaviors.