Application of Positive Psychology in Digital Interventions for Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence of mental health issues in children, adolescents, and young adults has become an escalating public health issue, impacting approximately 10%-20% of young people on a global scale. Positive psychology interventions (PPIs) can act as powerful mental health promotion tools to reach wide-ranging audiences that might otherwise be challenging to access. This increased access would enable prevention of mental disorders and promotion of widespread well-being by enhancing self-efficacy, thereby supporting the achievement of tangible objectives. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a comprehensive synthesis of all randomized controlled trials and controlled trials involving children, adolescents, and young adults, encompassing both clinical and nonclinical populations, to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of digital PPIs in this age group. METHODS: After a literature search in 9 electronic databases until January 12, 2023, and gray literature until April 2023, we carried out a systematic review of 35 articles, of which 18 (51%) provided data for the meta-analysis. We included randomized controlled trials and controlled trials mainly based on web-based, digital, or smartphone-based interventions using a positive psychology framework as the main component. Studies included participants with a mean age of <35 years. Outcomes of PPIs were classified into indicators of well-being (compassion, life satisfaction, optimism, happiness, resilience, emotion regulation and emotion awareness, hope, mindfulness, purpose, quality of life, gratitude, empathy, forgiveness, motivation, and kindness) and ill-being (depression, anxiety, stress, loneliness, and burnout). PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were used for the selection of studies and data extraction. Quality assessment was performed following the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines. RESULTS: For well-being outcomes, meta-analytic results showed that PPIs augmented the feeling of purpose, gratitude, and hope (Hedges g=0.555), compassion (Hedges g=0.447), positive coping behaviors (Hedges g=0.421), body image-related outcomes (Hedges g=0.238), and positive mindset predisposition (Hedges g=0.304). For ill-being outcomes, PPIs reduced cognitive biases (Hedges g=-0.637), negative emotions and mood (Hedges g=-0.369), and stress levels (Hedges g=-0.342). Of note, larger effect sizes were found when a waiting list control group was considered versus a digital control group. A funnel plot showed no publication bias. Meta-regression analyses showed that PPIs tended to show a larger effect size on well-being outcomes in studies including young adults, whereas no specific effect was found for ill-being outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Revised evidence suggests that PPIs benefit young people's well-being and mitigate ill-being symptoms. Digital platforms offer a unique way to address their mental health challenges, although not without limitations. Future research should explore how they work for the needs of the young population and further examine what specific PPIs or combination of interventions is most beneficial with respect to other digital control groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42023420092; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=420092.
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 | 0.017 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".