A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Evaluation of a Universal Healthy Relationships Promotion Program for Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bullying and mental health problems are pressing concerns for adolescents. Given their burden, we need to find efficacious ways to prevent these experiences. However, existing prevention programs tend to be single-issue and may not focus on the universal capacities required to reduce these problems among youth. To this end, we evaluated the universal, small groups Healthy Relationships Plus (HRP) program, which focuses on the promotion of positive mental health and the reduction of bullying and substance misuse. A sample of 212 youth from Southwestern Ontario were randomly assigned to the HRP or an attention-control condition over an 8-day period during summer 2014. Primary outcome measures (i.e., most important outcomes for this evaluation) were positive mental health, bullying victimization/perpetration, and substance misuse (alcohol, marijuana). We also examined a mediator (help-seeking) and two moderators (sex, adverse childhood experiences) of main effects. Participation in HRP was associated with reduced odds of physical bullying victimization at 1-year follow-up, compared with adolescents in the attention-control condition. This finding was mediated by increased intention to seek help from a mental health professional following HRP participation. We did not find main effects for positive mental health or substance misuse in this sample; however, there was an interaction effect whereby youth with significant trauma experiences reported less marijuana use at 1-year follow-up compared with control students. Findings reiterate the importance of help-seeking for bullying prevention and demonstrate the preliminary efficacy of the HRP as a universal strategy for preventing bullying victimization among mid-adolescents within school and community settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".