John G. Mills, Lee Cumbers, S. Williams, Henry Titley-Wall
{"title":"青少年心理健康素养干预的有效性:一项荟萃分析","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":"{\"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}","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}
The effectiveness of mental health literacy interventions in young people: a meta-analysis
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.