The effectiveness of school mental health literacy programs to address knowledge, attitudes and help seeking among youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Conduct a systematic review for the effectiveness of school mental health literacy programs to enhance knowledge, reduce stigmatizing attitudes and improve help-seeking behaviours among youth (12-25 years of age). METHODS: Reviewers independently searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ERIC, grey literature and reference lists of included studies. They reached a consensus on the included studies, and rated the risk of bias of each study. Studies that reported three outcomes: knowledge acquisition, stigmatizing attitudes and help-seeking behaviours; and were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-experimental studies, and controlled-before-and-after studies, were eligible. RESULTS: This review resulted in 27 articles including 5 RCTs, 13 quasi-experimental studies, and 9 controlled-before-and-after studies. Whereas most included studies claimed school-based mental health literacy programs improve knowledge, attitudes and help-seeking behaviour, 17 studies met criteria for high risk of bias, 10 studies for moderate risk of bias, and no studies for low risk of bias. Common limitations included the lack of randomization, control for confounding factors, validated measures and report on attrition in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for knowledge and help-seeking behaviour outcomes was very low, and low for the attitude outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Research into school-based mental health literacy is still in its infancy and there is insufficient evidence to claim for positive impact of school mental health literacy programs on knowledge improvement, attitudinal change or help-seeking behaviour. Future research should focus on methods to appropriately determine the evidence of effectiveness on school-based mental health literacy programs, considering the values of both RCTs and other research designs in this approach. Educators should consider the strengths and weaknesses of current mental health literacy programs to inform decisions regarding possible implementation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".