The effectiveness of mental health literacy interventions in young people: a meta-analysis

IF 1 Q4 PSYCHIATRY Mental Health Review Journal Pub Date : 2023-08-11 DOI:10.1108/mhrj-07-2022-0052
John G. Mills, Lee Cumbers, S. Williams, Henry Titley-Wall
{"title":"The effectiveness of mental health literacy interventions in young people: a meta-analysis","authors":"John G. Mills, Lee Cumbers, S. Williams, Henry Titley-Wall","doi":"10.1108/mhrj-07-2022-0052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nAdolescence and young adulthood are recognised as critical time for developing mental health literacy (MHL). The purpose of this study is to analyse the effectiveness of current MHL interventions to guide the future development of MHL intervention strategies.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA meta-analysis adopting the PRISMA framework for systematically reviewing the literature was adopted. Three authors independently reviewed studies and extrapolated key data for analysis. A robust random-effects model with adjustments for small study biases was conducted to establish the effect sizes of all included MHL interventions. Moderator analysis was conducted to examine the effects of intervention length in MHL.\n\n\nFindings\nA total of 11 intervention studies were identified and analysed, resulting in a medium to large pooled effect size of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.28; 0.96). Moderator analysis found that short interventions had an estimated standard mean difference (SMD) effect size of 0.9220 (95% CI: −1.1555; 2.9995). This was greater than the medium length interventions, with an estimated SMD effect size of 0.4967 (95% CI: 0.0452; 0.9483), and long interventions, with an estimated SMD effect size of 0.5628 (95% CI: −0.2726; 1.3983). As a result, MHL interventions are proficient in improving young adults’ MHL, with shorter interventions (45–50 min) having the largest effect size. This study highlights several inconsistencies in methodological rigour and reporting from studies in this area, which future research should look to address.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nTo date, MHL review studies have often focused their attention on a specific domain, most notably education and school-based setting. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no reviews have conducted a meta-analysis across contexts and domains with a specific focus on MHL intervention strategies for young adults.\n","PeriodicalId":45687,"journal":{"name":"Mental Health Review Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental Health Review Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mhrj-07-2022-0052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Adolescence and young adulthood are recognised as critical time for developing mental health literacy (MHL). The purpose of this study is to analyse the effectiveness of current MHL interventions to guide the future development of MHL intervention strategies. Design/methodology/approach A meta-analysis adopting the PRISMA framework for systematically reviewing the literature was adopted. Three authors independently reviewed studies and extrapolated key data for analysis. A robust random-effects model with adjustments for small study biases was conducted to establish the effect sizes of all included MHL interventions. Moderator analysis was conducted to examine the effects of intervention length in MHL. Findings A total of 11 intervention studies were identified and analysed, resulting in a medium to large pooled effect size of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.28; 0.96). Moderator analysis found that short interventions had an estimated standard mean difference (SMD) effect size of 0.9220 (95% CI: −1.1555; 2.9995). This was greater than the medium length interventions, with an estimated SMD effect size of 0.4967 (95% CI: 0.0452; 0.9483), and long interventions, with an estimated SMD effect size of 0.5628 (95% CI: −0.2726; 1.3983). As a result, MHL interventions are proficient in improving young adults’ MHL, with shorter interventions (45–50 min) having the largest effect size. This study highlights several inconsistencies in methodological rigour and reporting from studies in this area, which future research should look to address. Originality/value To date, MHL review studies have often focused their attention on a specific domain, most notably education and school-based setting. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no reviews have conducted a meta-analysis across contexts and domains with a specific focus on MHL intervention strategies for young adults.
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
青少年心理健康素养干预的有效性:一项荟萃分析
目的青春期和青年期被认为是发展心理健康素养的关键时期。本研究的目的是分析当前MHL干预措施的有效性,以指导未来MHL干预策略的发展。设计/方法/方法采用PRISMA框架进行meta分析,对文献进行系统回顾。三位作者独立审查了研究并推断了分析的关键数据。采用一个校正了小研究偏差的稳健随机效应模型来确定所有纳入的MHL干预措施的效应大小。进行调节分析以检验干预时间对MHL的影响。共鉴定和分析了11项干预研究,得出中大型合并效应值为0.62 (95% CI: 0.28;0.96)。调节分析发现,短期干预的估计标准平均差(SMD)效应大小为0.9220 (95% CI:−1.1555;2.9995)。这大于中等长度的干预措施,估计SMD效应大小为0.4967 (95% CI: 0.0452;0.9483)和长期干预,估计SMD效应大小为0.5628 (95% CI: - 0.2726;1.3983)。因此,MHL干预在改善年轻人MHL方面效果显著,其中较短的干预(45-50分钟)效果最大。本研究强调了该领域研究在方法严谨性和报告方面的几个不一致之处,这是未来研究应该解决的问题。独创性/价值迄今为止,MHL评论研究通常将注意力集中在特定领域,最明显的是教育和学校环境。据作者所知,尚无综述跨背景和领域进行荟萃分析,特别关注年轻人的MHL干预策略。
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
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Understanding gender-responsive needs of girls in the Children and Young People Secure Estate (CYPSE): menstrual cycle considerations Editorial: The British and Irish group for the study of personality disorder: reflections on the 23rd annual conference The “Team Tree” Professional Tree of Life intervention: development and evaluation within the acute inpatient psychiatric setting Systematicity of receiving mental health care predicts better subjective well-being of Ukrainians during the second year of the Russian invasion Comparing service user perspectives of an early intervention in psychosis service before and during COVID-19 lockdowns: a service evaluation
×
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