Child and Adolescent Mental Health最新文献

In this article, we evaluate the current state of universal school-based mental health prevention. We argue that the field is at another pivotal turning point, with many unanswered questions. As youth mental health issues rise in prominence and prevalence, schools increasingly adopt mental health and well-being programmes. However, recent large-scale trials have reported varied effects, raising questions about their effectiveness. We critically analyse these findings and place them in a global context. We contend results in high-income countries should not be seen as a failure of universal prevention overall and unpack key learnings from trials that have not found significant preventive effects. A comprehensive perspective of the data reveals both negative and positive aspects, as well as some signposts for the way forward. We advocate for programme adaptation based on feedback, embracing proportionate universalism and exploring alternative prevention strategies without discarding universal prevention. We urge continued research with stakeholder involvement, emphasising a nuanced approach to universal school-based mental health prevention, is urgently needed to move the field forward.

We are conditioned not to see some of the most potent facts; one of these repressed facts is the common assumption that goodness is the same as obedience – you are good if you ‘do what you're told’ – and bad if you are disobedient. To illustrate how this invisibility of social conditioning works, some very famous stories are helpful, both for how this conditioning works and for how it is resisted, because, simply put, obedience is not the same as being good.

Although parenting interventions are recommended by major clinical guidelines for managing children's behavioral challenges, including ADHD, their uptake in clinical practice remains limited. Building on the contributions of Hodson et al. and Nijboer et al. in the current issue of this journal, we here explore solutions to enhance this uptake. We first summarize the usual suspects: solutions that could be implemented in our current mental healthcare systems. Digital and brief interventions could remove obstacles that are often experienced with traditional parenting interventions, and nudges inspired by behavioral economic theories can help remove dynamic, time-varying barriers experienced by parents that may arise during the course of the intervention. We then zoom out and present a paradigmatic challenge. The current narrative surrounding behavioral problems like ADHD is predominantly biomedical, which tends to elevate expectations for treatments such as medication while simultaneously diminishing confidence in parenting interventions. From this perspective, it is unsurprising that engagement issues arise when a context-focused intervention such as parent training is proposed as a solution to a decontextualized problem like ADHD. Adopting a truly balanced biopsychosocial-societal perspective on behavioral problems like ADHD would better reflect their complex and heterogeneous etiology, and would broaden the scope for interventions, such as parenting programs, that focus on optimizing children's contextual environments.

Mental health problems in schools are a concern and various initiatives have been developed to address these. Interventions can be universal (covering a whole school) or targeted (addressing those with specific needs). Any new intervention should be evaluated, and this should include an assessment of cost-effectiveness. Evidence to date suggests that while gains from universal schemes may be modest, they can still be cost-effective given the extent of their reach. However, targeted interventions can address key health inequalities which should also be an objective of an economic evaluation. Studies that have examined the longer term impact of both universal and targeted approaches have demonstrated that both can represent good values for money, and it is likely that a blended or tiered approach is appropriate.

There is an urgent need to improve mental health outcomes among young people. One approach taken to address this problem has been the design and delivery of universal school-based prevention, based on therapeutic models such as CBT and mindfulness. Such interventions are delivered to groups of young people, irrespective of risk or need. However, in this commentary, we argue that the initial appeal of universal interventions has not been supported by the evidence: universal school-based prevention is less effective than targeted approaches, often leads to null or unsustained positive effects, has the potential to elicit negative effects and is not well liked by young people themselves. In addition, many young people in each classroom already meet the criteria for a mental disorder, meaning that prevention approaches may not be appropriate or effective for this group. In this commentary, we respond to Birrell et al.'s (2025) paper by arguing that the field should move away from universal prevention and instead invest our limited resources in the refinement and dissemination of interventions with a stronger evidence base, such as one-to-one, targeted and indirect approaches.