Dataset Information

School-based interventions to prevent anxiety and depression in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rates of anxiety and depression are increasing among children and young people. Recent policies have focused on primary prevention of mental disorders in children and young people, with schools at the forefront of implementation. There is limited information for the comparative effectiveness of the multiple interventions available.

Methods

We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for published and unpublished, passive and active-controlled randomised and quasi-randomised trials. We included educational setting-based, universal, or targeted interventions in which the primary aim was the prevention of anxiety and depression in children and young people aged 4-18 years. Primary outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation, or self-harm. We assessed risk of bias following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) using random effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. The study is registered with PROPSERO, number CRD42016048184.

Findings

1512 full-text articles were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56 620 participants were included. 20 studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was weak evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural interventions might reduce anxiety in primary and secondary settings. In universal secondary settings, mindfulness and relaxation-based interventions showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms relative to usual curriculum (SMD -0·65, 95% credible interval -1·14 to -0·19). There was a lack of evidence to support any one type of intervention being effective to prevent depression in universal or targeted primary or secondary settings. Comparison-adjusted funnel plots suggest the presence of small-study effects for the universal secondary anxiety analysis. Network meta-analysis was not feasible for wellbeing or suicidal ideation or self-harm outcomes, and results are reported narratively.

Interpretation

Considering unclear risk of bias and probable small study effects for anxiety, we conclude there is little evidence that educational setting-based interventions focused solely on the prevention of depression or anxiety are effective. Future research could consider multilevel, systems-based interventions as an alternative to the downstream interventions considered here.

Funding

UK National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Caldwell DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7029281 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMental health difficulties in children and adolescents are highly prevalent; however, only a minority receive adequate mental health care. Internet-delivered interventions offer a promising opportunity to increase access to mental health treatment. Research has demonstrated their effectiveness as a treatment for depression and anxiety in adults. This work provides an up-to-date examination of the available intervention options and their effectiveness for children and young people (CYP).ObjectiveIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to determine the evidence available for the effectiveness of internet-delivered interventions for treating anxiety and depression in CYP.MethodsSystematic literature searches were conducted throughout November 2020 using PubMed, PsycINFO, and EBSCO academic search complete electronic databases to find outcome trials of internet-delivered interventions treating symptoms of anxiety and/or depression in CYP by being either directly delivered to the CYP or delivered via their parents. Studies were eligible for meta-analysis if they were randomized controlled trials. Risk of bias and publication biases were evaluated, and Hedges g between group effect sizes evaluating intervention effects after treatment were calculated. Meta-analyses used random-effects models as per protocol.ResultsA total of 23 studies met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review, of which 16 were included in the meta-analyses, including 977 participants in internet-delivered treatment conditions and 1008 participants in control conditions across 21 comparisons. Random-effects models detected a significant small effect for anxiety symptoms (across 20 comparisons; Hedges g=-0.25, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.12; P<.001) and a small but not significant effect for depression (across 13 comparisons; Hedges g=-0.27, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.01; P=.06) in favor of internet-delivered interventions compared with control groups. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was a small effect of treatment across 9 comparisons for impaired functioning (Hedges g=0.52, 95% CI 0.24-0.80; P<.001), and 5 comparisons of quality of life showed no effect (Hedges g=-0.01, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21; P=.94).ConclusionsThe results show that the potential of internet-delivered interventions for young people with symptoms of anxiety or depression has not been tapped into to date. This review highlights an opportunity for the development of population-specific interventions and their research to expand our current knowledge and build an empirical base for digital interventions for CYP.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020220171; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=220171.

Project description:BackgroundGrowing evidence suggests that community-based interventions may be effective for anxiety and depression. This study aimed to describe studies of community interventions delivered to adults and/or young people, either in person or online, evaluated in randomised controlled trials and provide an indication as to their effectiveness, acceptability, quality of data and where possible, mechanisms of action. We included interventions delivered at and/or by museums, art galleries, libraries, gardens, music groups/choirs and sports clubs.MethodWe developed and followed a preregistered protocol: PROSPERO CRD42020204471. Randomised controlled trials in adults and young people were identified in an extensive search with no date/time, language, document type and publication status limitations. Studies were selected according to predetermined eligibility criteria and data independently extracted and then assessed using Risk of Bias 1. The studies were deemed too heterogeneous for meta-analysis and were therefore reported using a narrative synthesis.ResultsOur analysis included 31 studies, with 2898 participants. Community interventions most studied in randomised controlled trials were community music (12 studies, 1432 participants), community exercise (14 studies, 955 participants) and community gardens/gardening (6 studies, 335 participants). The majority of studies were from high-income countries - many were in specific populations (such as those with physical health problems) and were generally of low quality. Dropout rates across the included studies were low (1 participant on average per 100 participants). The inadequate description of interventions limited identification of potential mechanisms of action.DiscussionThe uncertainty of the evidence allows only a weak recommendation in support of community interventions for anxiety and depression. The results suggest community engagement is a promising area for wide-reaching interventions to be implemented and evaluated, but more high-quality trials are needed, especially in young people and under-represented communities.

Project description:BackgroundDisrupted social connections may negatively affect youth mental health. In contrast, sustained quality social connections (QSCs) can improve mental health outcomes. However, few studies have examined how these quality connections affect depression and anxiety outcomes within digital interventions, and conceptualization is limited.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to conceptualize, appraise, and synthesize evidence on QSC within digital interventions (D-QSC) and the impact on depression and anxiety outcomes for young people aged 14-24 years.MethodsA systematic scoping review and meta-analysis was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological frameworks and guided by experts with lived experience. Reporting was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched against a comprehensive combination of key concepts on June 24, 2020. The search concepts included young people, digital intervention, depression, anxiety, and social connection. Google was also searched. A reviewer independently screened abstracts and titles and full text, and 9.99% (388/3882) of these were screened by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was used to structure the findings on indicators of D-QSC and mechanisms that facilitate the connection. Indicators of D-QSC from the included studies were synthesized to produce a conceptual framework.ResultsOf the 5715 publications identified, 42 (0.73%) were included. Among the included studies, there were 23,319 participants. Indicators that D-QSC was present varied and included relatedness, having a sense of belonging, and connecting to similar people. However, despite the variation, most of the indicators were associated with improved outcomes for depression and anxiety. Negative interactions, loneliness, and feeling ignored indicated that D-QSC was not present. In 24% (10/42) of the applicable studies, a meta-analysis showed a significant decrease in depression (-25.6%, 95% CI -0.352 to -0.160; P<.001) and anxiety (-15.1%, 95% CI -0.251 to -0.051; P=.003) after a D-QSC. Digital mechanisms that helped create a quality connection included anonymity, confidentiality, and peer support. In contrast, mechanisms that hindered the connection included disconnection from the real world and inability to see body language. Data synthesis also identified a 5-component conceptual framework of D-QSC that included rapport, identity and commonality, valued interpersonal dynamic, engagement, and responded to and accepted.ConclusionsD-QSC is an important and underconsidered component for youth depression and anxiety outcomes. Researchers and developers should consider targeting improved QSC between clinicians and young people within digital interventions for depression. Future research should build on our framework to further examine relationships among individual attributes of QSC, various digital interventions, and different populations.

Project description:BackgroundThe majority of internet-based anxiety and depression intervention studies have targeted adults. An increasing number of studies of children, youth, and young adults have been conducted, but the evidence on effectiveness has not been synthesized. The objective of this research is to systematically review the most recent findings in this area and calculate overall (pooled) effect estimates of internet-based anxiety and/or depression interventions.MethodsWe searched five literature databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar) for studies published between January 1990 and December 2012. We included studies evaluating the effectiveness of internet-based interventions for children, youth, and young adults (age <25 years) with anxiety and/or depression and their parents. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias regarding selection bias, allocation bias, confounding bias, blinding, data collection, and withdrawals/dropouts. We included studies rated as high or moderate quality according to the risk of bias assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using the random effects model. We calculated standardized mean difference and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for anxiety and depression symptom severity scores by comparing internet-based intervention vs. waitlist control and internet-based intervention vs. face-to-face intervention. We also calculated pooled remission rate ratio and 95% CI.ResultsWe included seven studies involving 569 participants aged between 7 and 25 years. Meta-analysis suggested that, compared to waitlist control, internet-based interventions were able to reduce anxiety symptom severity (standardized mean difference and 95% CI = -0.52 [-0.90, -0.14]) and increase remission rate (pooled remission rate ratio and 95% CI =3.63 [1.59, 8.27]). The effect in reducing depression symptom severity was not statistically significant (standardized mean difference and 95% CI = -0.16 [-0.44, 0.12]). We found no statistical difference in anxiety or depression symptoms between internet-based intervention and face-to-face intervention (or usual care).ConclusionsThe present analysis indicated that internet-based interventions were effective in reducing anxiety symptoms and increasing remission rate, but not effective in reducing depression symptom severity. Due to the small number of higher quality studies, more attention to this area of research is encouraged.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42012002100.