Exploring the Moderating Effect of Control Group Type on Intervention Effectiveness in School-Based Anxiety and Depression Prevention: Findings from a Rapid Review and Network Meta-analysis.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Prevention Science Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1007/s11121-025-01786-y
Deborah M Caldwell, Jennifer C Palmer, Katie E Webster, Sarah R Davies, Hugo Hughes, Joseph Rona, Rachel Churchill, Sarah E Hetrick, Nicky J Welton
{"title":"Exploring the Moderating Effect of Control Group Type on Intervention Effectiveness in School-Based Anxiety and Depression Prevention: Findings from a Rapid Review and Network Meta-analysis.","authors":"Deborah M Caldwell, Jennifer C Palmer, Katie E Webster, Sarah R Davies, Hugo Hughes, Joseph Rona, Rachel Churchill, Sarah E Hetrick, Nicky J Welton","doi":"10.1007/s11121-025-01786-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many randomized controlled trials have investigated the role of school-based prevention interventions to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression in young people. Systematic reviews have subsequently demonstrated a small, beneficial effect of these interventions when compared to a combined control group including usual care, no intervention, or waiting list controls. However, evidence from behavioral science and clinical psychology suggests control group choice may influence the relative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions. Here we explored whether separating this combined control group into distinct categories might influence the apparent effectiveness of preventive interventions. After updating an earlier review and network meta-analysis of preventive interventions for anxiety and depression in young people, we considered the impact of alternative control groups on estimates of effectiveness. This analysis was restricted to comparisons with cognitive-behavioral interventions only-the most common intervention used in the included studies. In targeted populations, for both anxiety and depression outcomes, the effect of a cognitive-behavioral intervention was larger when compared to waiting list controls than to usual curriculum, no intervention, or attention controls. For anxiety, the effect of no intervention was also considerably larger than waiting list control (standardized mean difference -0.37 [95% credible interval - 0.66, - 0.11], favoring no intervention). These results suggest that the beneficial effect of preventive school-based interventions previously observed in standard meta-analyses may be an artifact of combining control groups. Although exploratory, these findings indicate the impact of different control groups may vary considerably and should be taken into account when interpreting the effectiveness of interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48268,"journal":{"name":"Prevention Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prevention Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-025-01786-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many randomized controlled trials have investigated the role of school-based prevention interventions to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression in young people. Systematic reviews have subsequently demonstrated a small, beneficial effect of these interventions when compared to a combined control group including usual care, no intervention, or waiting list controls. However, evidence from behavioral science and clinical psychology suggests control group choice may influence the relative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions. Here we explored whether separating this combined control group into distinct categories might influence the apparent effectiveness of preventive interventions. After updating an earlier review and network meta-analysis of preventive interventions for anxiety and depression in young people, we considered the impact of alternative control groups on estimates of effectiveness. This analysis was restricted to comparisons with cognitive-behavioral interventions only-the most common intervention used in the included studies. In targeted populations, for both anxiety and depression outcomes, the effect of a cognitive-behavioral intervention was larger when compared to waiting list controls than to usual curriculum, no intervention, or attention controls. For anxiety, the effect of no intervention was also considerably larger than waiting list control (standardized mean difference -0.37 [95% credible interval - 0.66, - 0.11], favoring no intervention). These results suggest that the beneficial effect of preventive school-based interventions previously observed in standard meta-analyses may be an artifact of combining control groups. Although exploratory, these findings indicate the impact of different control groups may vary considerably and should be taken into account when interpreting the effectiveness of interventions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Prevention Science
Prevention Science PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.40%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: Prevention Science is the official publication of the Society for Prevention Research. The Journal serves as an interdisciplinary forum designed to disseminate new developments in the theory, research and practice of prevention. Prevention sciences encompassing etiology, epidemiology and intervention are represented through peer-reviewed original research articles on a variety of health and social problems, including but not limited to substance abuse, mental health, HIV/AIDS, violence, accidents, teenage pregnancy, suicide, delinquency, STD''s, obesity, diet/nutrition, exercise, and chronic illness. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical articles, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, brief reports, replication studies, and papers concerning new developments in methodology.
期刊最新文献
A Non-coercive Prevention Cascade Using a Cash-Plus Model for Legally Involved Youth: a Multi-method Study of Feasibility, Acceptability, and Engagement Outcomes. What Do We Know About the Stop Now and Plan Program? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of an Early Invention for Children and Youth with Conduct Problems. Exploring the Moderating Effect of Control Group Type on Intervention Effectiveness in School-Based Anxiety and Depression Prevention: Findings from a Rapid Review and Network Meta-analysis. History of Alcohol Use Disorder and Housing Instability as Predictors of Fatigue and Mental Health Problems During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Understanding Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among LGBTQ + Youth: Differential Associations Between Bullying and Substance Use.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1