Scoping review: potential harm from school-based group mental health interventions.

IF 6.8 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Pub Date : 2025-03-18 DOI:10.1111/camh.12760
Carolina Guzman-Holst, Rowan Streckfuss Davis, Jack L Andrews, Lucy Foulkes
{"title":"Scoping review: potential harm from school-based group mental health interventions.","authors":"Carolina Guzman-Holst, Rowan Streckfuss Davis, Jack L Andrews, Lucy Foulkes","doi":"10.1111/camh.12760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A growing body of evidence demonstrates that school-based mental health interventions may be potentially harmful. We define potential harm as any negative outcome or adverse event that could plausibly be linked to an intervention. In this scoping review, we examine three areas: the types of potential harms and adverse events reported in school-based mental health interventions; the subgroups of children and adolescents at heightened risk; and the proposed explanations for these potential harms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched eight databases (1960-2023), performed an author search and hand-searched for published and unpublished studies that evaluated controlled trials of school-based group mental health interventions based on cognitive-behavioural therapy and/or mindfulness techniques, with the aim of reducing or preventing internalising symptoms or increasing wellbeing. Two independent raters screened studies for eligibility and assessed study quality using Cochrane tools. From eligible studies, we reviewed those that reported at least one negative outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten out of 112 (8.93%) interventions (described in 120 studies) reported at least one negative outcome such as a decrease in wellbeing or an increase in depression or anxiety. Three out of 112 interventions (2.68%) reported the occurrence of specific adverse events, none of which were linked to the intervention. Of the 15/120 studies rated as high quality (i.e. those with low risk of bias), 5/15 (33.33%) reported at least one negative outcome. Negative outcomes were found for a number of subgroups including individuals deemed at high risk of mental health problems, male participants, younger children and children eligible for free school meals. About half (54.5%) of the studies acknowledged that the content of the intervention itself might have led to the negative outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To design and implement effective school-based mental health interventions, the issues of potential harm and their related measurement and reporting challenges must be addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49291,"journal":{"name":"Child and Adolescent Mental Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child and Adolescent Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12760","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A growing body of evidence demonstrates that school-based mental health interventions may be potentially harmful. We define potential harm as any negative outcome or adverse event that could plausibly be linked to an intervention. In this scoping review, we examine three areas: the types of potential harms and adverse events reported in school-based mental health interventions; the subgroups of children and adolescents at heightened risk; and the proposed explanations for these potential harms.

Methods: We searched eight databases (1960-2023), performed an author search and hand-searched for published and unpublished studies that evaluated controlled trials of school-based group mental health interventions based on cognitive-behavioural therapy and/or mindfulness techniques, with the aim of reducing or preventing internalising symptoms or increasing wellbeing. Two independent raters screened studies for eligibility and assessed study quality using Cochrane tools. From eligible studies, we reviewed those that reported at least one negative outcome.

Results: Ten out of 112 (8.93%) interventions (described in 120 studies) reported at least one negative outcome such as a decrease in wellbeing or an increase in depression or anxiety. Three out of 112 interventions (2.68%) reported the occurrence of specific adverse events, none of which were linked to the intervention. Of the 15/120 studies rated as high quality (i.e. those with low risk of bias), 5/15 (33.33%) reported at least one negative outcome. Negative outcomes were found for a number of subgroups including individuals deemed at high risk of mental health problems, male participants, younger children and children eligible for free school meals. About half (54.5%) of the studies acknowledged that the content of the intervention itself might have led to the negative outcome.

Conclusion: To design and implement effective school-based mental health interventions, the issues of potential harm and their related measurement and reporting challenges must be addressed.

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
Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Child and Adolescent Mental Health PEDIATRICS-PSYCHIATRY
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
3.30%
发文量
77
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMH) publishes high quality, peer-reviewed child and adolescent mental health services research of relevance to academics, clinicians and commissioners internationally. The journal''s principal aim is to foster evidence-based clinical practice and clinically orientated research among clinicians and health services researchers working with children and adolescents, parents and their families in relation to or with a particular interest in mental health. CAMH publishes reviews, original articles, and pilot reports of innovative approaches, interventions, clinical methods and service developments. The journal has regular sections on Measurement Issues, Innovations in Practice, Global Child Mental Health and Humanities. All published papers should be of direct relevance to mental health practitioners and clearly draw out clinical implications for the field.
期刊最新文献
Bullying victimization among adolescents during the early phase of war in Ukraine - A comparative cross-sectional study in 2016-2017. Scoping review: potential harm from school-based group mental health interventions. Debate: Urban versus rural environments - which is better for mental health? Beyond the urban and rural dichotomy, a call to consider quality, typology and space in greenspace strategies for mental health. Debate: Where to next for universal school-based mental health interventions? Tensions in prevention - To build better school-based programming, we must start with what we know. Letter to the Editor: Mindfulness will only be in decline if we stop being mindful.
×
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