A Scoping Review of Prevention Classification in Mental Health: Examining the Application of Caplan's and Gordon's Prevention Frameworks (2018-2024).

Abstract

Mental health prevention is a global priority owing to the increasing burden of mental disorders exacerbated by global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, economic instability, and armed conflicts. These crises have heightened the need for effective preventive strategies addressing mental health across different life stages and populations. To structure and classify such strategies, Caplan's and Gordon's frameworks have been widely used, with one focusing on disease progression and the other on population risk. Although both frameworks are frequently used in mental health prevention, their application in clinical trials remains unexplored. This review addresses this gap by examining how Caplan's and Gordon's frameworks have been applied in mental health prevention, identifying research gaps, and exploring their potential for their combined application to enhance prevention strategies. A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies were selected based on predefined criteria and the data were synthesized. The search spanned PubMed, Scopus, APA PsycArticles, and PubPsych, covering peer-reviewed clinical trials, including randomized controlled trials, published between 2018 and 2024 in English or German. Eligible studies classified interventions based on Caplan's framework, which focuses on disease stage (primary, secondary, tertiary), or Gordon's framework, which categorizes prevention by population risk (universal, selective, indicated). Studies had to focus on mental health prevention, include populations relevant to mental health and well-being, and report mental health or well-being outcomes. Of the 40 included studies, six applied Caplan's framework, 30 applied Gordon's framework and three used a modified classification based on Gordon's approach. One study applied both frameworks, highlighting that their complementary use is rare. Studies were conducted in 19 countries, with the highest number from Germany (n = 8), the USA (n = 8), and the Netherlands (n = 6), across four continents (Asia, n = 5; Australia, n = 5; Europe, n = 22; North America, n = 8). Gordon's framework was applied more frequently, particularly in universal (n = 15) and indicated prevention (n = 12), while Caplan's framework was used mainly in primary prevention (n = 4). Depression (n = 25), anxiety (n = 21), stress (n = 8), and general mental health (n = 8) were the most frequently assessed outcomes. The studies targeted diverse populations, including children (n = 7), adolescents (n = 8), children and adolescents (n = 1) parents and their children or adolescents (n = 2), university students (n = 6), working adults (n = 7), older adults (n = 1), and adults without specifying (n = 8). This review highlights the underutilized potential of integrating Caplan's and Gordon's frameworks in mental health interventions. Two application examples illustrate how these frameworks can be combined to structure prevention strategies more effectively. Future research should explore combining these frameworks to enhance prevention strategies and address the emerging global health challenges.