Mental Health and Positive Development Prevention Interventions: Overview of Systematic Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Previous reviews of mental health interventions have focused on adolescents (10-19 years), with a paucity of comprehensive evidence syntheses on preventive interventions for school-aged children (5-10 years). OBJECTIVE: To summarize and synthesize the available evidence from systematic reviews of mental health and positive development interventions for children aged 5-14.9 years in both high-income (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), with a focus on preventive and promotive strategies. DATA SOURCES: This overview includes all relevant reviews from OVID Medline, The Cochrane Library, and Campbell Systematic Reviews through December 2020. STUDY SELECTION: We included systematic reviews that synthesized empirical studies using experimental or quasi-experimental designs to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in children aged 5-14.9 years. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently and in duplicate by two review authors. The AMSTAR2 tool was used to assess methodological quality. RESULTS: We included 162 reviews. The greatest evidence was found in support of school-based universal and anti-bullying interventions in predominantly HIC. Moderate evidence was found for the use of substance abuse prevention, and early learning and positive development interventions in mixed settings. In LMIC-only contexts, the most promising evidence was found for positive youth development programs. LIMITATIONS: The review was primarily limited by paucity of high-quality research due to methodological issues and high heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This overview of reviews highlights the need for further research to consolidate findings and understand the specific criteria involved in creating positive mental health and development outcomes from the various interventions considered.
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 | 0.020 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".