School-Based Mental Health Literacy Educational Interventions in Adolescents: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Poor health literacy is a major obstacle to seeking help for health problems in adolescents. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of school-based educational interventions on improving health literacy (MHL) in adolescents.  Materials and Methods: In this study, a search was conducted in Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Irandoc, Magiran, and SID databases in both Persian and English language for studies published from 2011 to 2021. The keywords adolescent, mental health literacy, depression literacy, intervention, education, and high school were searched in both languages. Out of 191 articles extracted and finally, 6 articles were included in this study.  Results: The results of the study conducted in Norway showed that the individualâ��s health literacy who participated in the all Mental Health program was significantly increased compared to those in the control group; findings of a study conducted in Australia reported that MHL in the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group after intervention (P <0.05). But, attitudes toward seeking help did not change. A Canadian study indicated that the health curriculum significantly increased health knowledge and reduced tagging (P <0.001); furthermore, an Iranian study demonstrated that the mean score of MHL in the intervention group was significantly increased compared to the control group after the educational intervention (P <0.001). In the study, which was conducted in the US, depressive literacy in the intervention group was significantly increased 4 months after the intervention. However, results of one study showed that education intervention is more effective than contact based intervention with an ill person (P <0.001).  Conclusion: Evidence highlights that although studies have used a variety of methods for adolescent health literacy interventions in schools, all studies have had a positive effect on health literacy. Given that studies used self-report assessment to measure MHL outcomes. Thus, coni¬�rmation of these i¬�ndings with objective tools is still needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".