Effectiveness of school-based depression prevention interventions: An overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses on depression outcomes.

IF 5 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of consulting and clinical psychology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-30 DOI:10.1037/ccp0000930

Sean Grant, Maria Schweer-Collins, Elizabeth Day, Shaina D Trevino, Katarzyna Steinka-Fry, Emily E Tanner-Smith

{"title":"Effectiveness of school-based depression prevention interventions: An overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses on depression outcomes.","authors":"Sean Grant, Maria Schweer-Collins, Elizabeth Day, Shaina D Trevino, Katarzyna Steinka-Fry, Emily E Tanner-Smith","doi":"10.1037/ccp0000930","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This overview aims to summarize systematic reviews with meta-analyses estimating the effects of school-based depression prevention interventions on depression outcomes.Method: We conducted electronic searches (Australian Education Index, Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I, Pubmed, Social Science Premium Collection), hand-searched key journals, and conducted backward and forward citation chasing to identify eligible reviews. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed full texts for eligibility, and collected data. We narratively summarized review findings and quantified the overlap of primary studies across systematic reviews using Corrected Covered Area.Results: We identified 29 eligible systematic reviews with 472 included primary studies overall (Mdn = 35, range = 4-137). Only 177 primary studies (37%) were included in more than one review (Corrected Covered Area = 6%). We rated all reviews as low (10%) or critically low (90%) quality on A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2, and most reviews (86%) at high risk of bias on Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews. Reviews mostly suggest school-based depression prevention interventions may have modest average positive impacts on depression-related outcomes-both overall and for specific stages of prevention, school levels and student ages, and specific program manuals and intervention types. However, some reviews did not detect effects, and most reviews noted concerns about primary study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias in this body of evidence.Conclusions: School-based depression prevention interventions may be beneficial on average, though existing reviews have important methodological limitations. A living systematic review conducted according to methodological best practice could provide timely, relevant, and rigorous evidence for educational decision making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","volume":"93 4","pages":"194-212"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000930","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This overview aims to summarize systematic reviews with meta-analyses estimating the effects of school-based depression prevention interventions on depression outcomes.

Method: We conducted electronic searches (Australian Education Index, Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I, Pubmed, Social Science Premium Collection), hand-searched key journals, and conducted backward and forward citation chasing to identify eligible reviews. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed full texts for eligibility, and collected data. We narratively summarized review findings and quantified the overlap of primary studies across systematic reviews using Corrected Covered Area.

Results: We identified 29 eligible systematic reviews with 472 included primary studies overall (Mdn = 35, range = 4-137). Only 177 primary studies (37%) were included in more than one review (Corrected Covered Area = 6%). We rated all reviews as low (10%) or critically low (90%) quality on A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2, and most reviews (86%) at high risk of bias on Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews. Reviews mostly suggest school-based depression prevention interventions may have modest average positive impacts on depression-related outcomes-both overall and for specific stages of prevention, school levels and student ages, and specific program manuals and intervention types. However, some reviews did not detect effects, and most reviews noted concerns about primary study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias in this body of evidence.

Conclusions: School-based depression prevention interventions may be beneficial on average, though existing reviews have important methodological limitations. A living systematic review conducted according to methodological best practice could provide timely, relevant, and rigorous evidence for educational decision making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

基于学校的抑郁症预防干预措施的有效性：对抑郁症结果的meta分析的系统综述。

目的：本综述旨在总结系统综述和荟萃分析，评估以学校为基础的抑郁预防干预对抑郁结局的影响。方法：通过电子检索（Australian Education Index，谷歌Scholar， ProQuest dissertation and Theses A&I, Pubmed, Social Science Premium Collection），手工检索关键期刊，并进行前后引文追踪，筛选出符合条件的综述。两名审稿人独立筛选记录，评估全文的合格性，并收集数据。我们叙述性地总结了综述结果，并使用校正覆盖区域量化了系统综述中主要研究的重叠部分。结果：我们确定了29项符合条件的系统评价，其中472项纳入了主要研究（Mdn = 35，范围= 4-137）。只有177项主要研究（37%）被纳入了不止一篇综述（校正覆盖面积= 6%）。我们在评估系统评价的测量工具-2中将所有评价评为低（10%）或极低（90%）质量，并且在系统评价的偏倚风险中，大多数评价（86%）具有高偏倚风险。综述大多表明，以学校为基础的抑郁症预防干预可能对抑郁症相关的结果有适度的平均积极影响——无论是总体上还是具体的预防阶段，学校水平和学生年龄，以及具体的计划手册和干预类型。然而，一些综述没有发现效应，大多数综述注意到对主要研究质量、异质性和发表偏倚的关注。结论：以学校为基础的抑郁症预防干预措施平均而言可能是有益的，尽管现有的综述存在重要的方法学局限性。根据方法最佳实践进行的活的系统审查可以为教育决策提供及时、相关和严格的证据。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。

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

Journal of consulting and clinical psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

9.00

自引率

3.40%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology® (JCCP) publishes original contributions on the following topics: the development, validity, and use of techniques of diagnosis and treatment of disordered behaviorstudies of a variety of populations that have clinical interest, including but not limited to medical patients, ethnic minorities, persons with serious mental illness, and community samplesstudies that have a cross-cultural or demographic focus and are of interest for treating behavior disordersstudies of personality and of its assessment and development where these have a clear bearing on problems of clinical dysfunction and treatmentstudies of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation that have a clear bearing on diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentstudies of psychosocial aspects of health behaviors. Studies that focus on populations that fall anywhere within the lifespan are considered. JCCP welcomes submissions on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical–health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad clinical–scientist and practitioner audience. JCCP encourages the submission of theory–based interventions, studies that investigate mechanisms of change, and studies of the effectiveness of treatments in real-world settings. JCCP recommends that authors of clinical trials pre-register their studies with an appropriate clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) though both registered and unregistered trials will continue to be considered at this time.