The Potential Influence of Group Membership on Outcomes in Indicated Cognitive-Behavioral Adolescent Depression Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adolescent depression prevention programs are typically delivered in groups in which adolescents share a common setting and interventionist, but the influence of the group is usually ignored or statistically controlled. We tested whether the primary outcomes of reductions in depressive symptoms and future onset of major depressive disorder (MDD) varied as a function of group membership. Methods: Data were available from two randomized trials in which 220 adolescents received the Blues Program indicated prevention intervention in 36 separate groups; participants were assessed at baseline, post intervention, and at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups. Results: Ten percent of participants had developed MDD 2 years post intervention. Group-level effects for MDD onset over follow-up were nonsignificant (accounted for <1% of variance; ICC = 0.004, ns). Group-level effects for depressive symptom change across the follow-up period were also nonsignificant (ICC = 0.001, ns) but group effects accounted for 16% of depressive symptom change immediately post intervention (ICC = 0.159, p < 0.05). Group-level clustering of posttest depressive symptoms was not associated with size of group or gender composition. Conclusions: Membership in specific adolescent cognitive-behavioral depression prevention groups may have an impact in terms of immediate symptom reduction but does not appear to have significant prevention effects in terms of long-term symptom change or MDD onset.
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 | 0.064 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".