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 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Prevention Science Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub 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":"175-192"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11891107/pdf/","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":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
控制组类型对校本焦虑抑郁预防干预效果的调节作用:基于快速回顾和网络元分析的结果
许多随机对照试验调查了以学校为基础的预防干预措施在减少年轻人焦虑和抑郁症状方面的作用。随后的系统评价表明,与常规护理、不干预或等候名单对照等联合对照组相比,这些干预措施有较小的有益效果。然而,来自行为科学和临床心理学的证据表明,对照组的选择可能会影响非药物干预的相对有效性。在这里,我们探讨了将这个联合对照组分成不同的类别是否会影响预防干预的明显有效性。在更新了早期关于年轻人焦虑和抑郁预防干预的综述和网络荟萃分析之后,我们考虑了替代对照组对有效性估计的影响。该分析仅限于与认知行为干预的比较,这是纳入研究中最常用的干预措施。在目标人群中,对于焦虑和抑郁的结果,认知行为干预的效果与等候名单对照相比,比常规课程、不干预或注意力对照更大。对于焦虑,不干预的效果也明显大于等候名单对照组(标准化平均差-0.37[95%可信区间- 0.66,- 0.11],支持不干预)。这些结果表明,先前在标准荟萃分析中观察到的以学校为基础的预防性干预措施的有益效果可能是组合对照组的人为产物。虽然是探索性的,但这些发现表明,不同对照组的影响可能有很大差异,在解释干预措施的有效性时应考虑到这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Quasi-randomization to Cannabinoid Condition in Studies of US Legal Market Cannabis: Characteristics of Accepters Versus Decliners of Condition Assignment. Characterizing the Substance Use Prevention Funding Landscape in the United States: a Cross-Sectional Study of National Prevention Network Representatives and Practitioners. Using Machine Learning to Predict Features Within Substance Use Disorder Treatment Service Settings That Increase the Likelihood of Positive Treatment Outcomes. Leveraging Machine Learning to Understand the Link Between School Climate and Youth Substance Use: a Focus on Cannabis and Alcohol Use. Gun-Related Beliefs as Predictors of Gun Policy Support: Findings from the Nationally Representative GRIP Survey.
×
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:604180095
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