That study was for mental health and this one is focus and emotional regulation. The British mental health study had very poor adherance and many students thought it was boring as well with an average number of mindfullness sessions at 1 over the 10 week period while the US study only measured those that completed the training.

Correction… via your own source, “a” study found…. This is the error of thinking in todays glut of information from anywhere and everywhere. Curation is actually a good thing as it would have weeded out this article to obscurity. I’m not outright refuting the veracity of this , one, study. But, it didn’t also look long term about the efficacy of showing teens that it is an option and in their later years may be more receptive. If you ask a bunch of kids, “What’s better? We spend an hour talking about Tiktok? Or we do some mindfulness exercises?” Of course they’re going to say “it’s boring”. They’re teenagers. Quite literally their brains are still developing but to throw the baby out for the bath water is a very bad conclusion made by this, one, study.

What I’d rather see is a meta-analysis study across many ages, survey/data collection methods, pooled mental health data, etc. and who knows… maybe it will confirm this, one, study. But to go find, one, study to back your assumptions is a slippery slope to follow.

No criticism, Im not attacking you

“Co-researcher Prof Mark Williams, from Oxford University, said that, on average, pupils only practised mindfulness once over the 10-week course.”

I think it's important to point out that the study you linked failed to find evidence that it helped. That's not the opposite of what this study found.

There is a lot of good discussion happening about false positives and false negatives in science. It's complicated. But not finding a result you're looking for is not the same as proving it's false.