Projects per year
Abstract
Background: Rates of anxiety and depression are increasing among children and young people (CYP). Increasingly, the policy agenda is focusing on primary prevention of mental disorders in CYP, with schools at the forefront of implementation. There is a lack of information for the comparative effectiveness of the multiple interventions available.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials were searched to 4th April 2018. Educational setting-based, universal or targeted, interventions for prevention of anxiety and/or depression in CYP aged 4-18 were included. Interventions aimed at promoting mental health, positive psychology or emotional well-being were excluded. Randomised and quasi-randomised, passive- and active-controlled studies were included. Main outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation/self-harm and inequalities. We assessed risk of bias following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) using random effects NMA conducted in a Bayesian framework. The study is registered with PROPSERO CRD42016048184.
Findings: 1511 full-text articles were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56,620 participants were included. Only 20 studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was weak evidence that cognitive behavioural interventions may reduce anxiety in primary and secondary settings. In universal secondary settings mindfulness/relaxation-based interventions (SMD -0.65, [95% CrI -1.14 to -0.19], showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms relative to usual curriculum. There was no evidence that any one type of intervention was effective for 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.
Interpretation: Considering unclear risk of bias and likely small study effects for anxiety, we conclude there is little evidence that educational setting-based interventions addressing the prevention of mental disorders are effective. These results contrast with other recently published meta-analyses. Post-hoc sensitivity analyses suggest this may be driven by differential control group effects masked by ‘lumping’ in pairwise meta-analysis. Future research could consider multi-level, systems-based interventions as an alternative to the ‘downstream’ interventions considered here.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials were searched to 4th April 2018. Educational setting-based, universal or targeted, interventions for prevention of anxiety and/or depression in CYP aged 4-18 were included. Interventions aimed at promoting mental health, positive psychology or emotional well-being were excluded. Randomised and quasi-randomised, passive- and active-controlled studies were included. Main outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation/self-harm and inequalities. We assessed risk of bias following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) using random effects NMA conducted in a Bayesian framework. The study is registered with PROPSERO CRD42016048184.
Findings: 1511 full-text articles were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56,620 participants were included. Only 20 studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was weak evidence that cognitive behavioural interventions may reduce anxiety in primary and secondary settings. In universal secondary settings mindfulness/relaxation-based interventions (SMD -0.65, [95% CrI -1.14 to -0.19], showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms relative to usual curriculum. There was no evidence that any one type of intervention was effective for 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.
Interpretation: Considering unclear risk of bias and likely small study effects for anxiety, we conclude there is little evidence that educational setting-based interventions addressing the prevention of mental disorders are effective. These results contrast with other recently published meta-analyses. Post-hoc sensitivity analyses suggest this may be driven by differential control group effects masked by ‘lumping’ in pairwise meta-analysis. Future research could consider multi-level, systems-based interventions as an alternative to the ‘downstream’ interventions considered here.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1011-1020 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | Lancet Psychiatry |
Volume | 6 |
Issue number | 12 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 13 Nov 2019 |
Structured keywords
- SASH
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'School-based interventions to prevent anxiety and depression in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Projects
- 3 Finished
-
No Pfizer: Calibration of multiple treatment comparisons using individual patient data
1/03/17 → 29/02/20
Project: Research
-
Network meta-analysis of complex interventions to prevent mental-ill health in children and young people
1/10/16 → 31/10/19
Project: Research
File -
Profiles
-
Professor Deborah Caldwell
- Bristol Medical School (PHS) - Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health
- Bristol Population Health Science Institute
- Centre for Academic Mental Health
- Multi-parameter Evidence Synthesis Research
Person: Academic , Member
-
Dr Judi L Kidger
- Bristol Medical School (PHS) - Associate Professor in Public Health
- Bristol Population Health Science Institute
Person: Academic , Member