A scoping review of universal school-based resilience programs for adolescents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resilience, broadly defined as effective adaptation to stress, adversity, or change, is an important capacity to foster in adolescence. To date, there has been little review of the literature on universal school-based resilience programs for teens. The current scoping review had three aims. The first aim was to report on the scope of literature on universal school-based resilience programs for adolescents. The second aim was to code and summarize the features and outcomes of these programs (stand-alone programs and whole-school programs). The third was to identify key themes emanating from nonempirical articles (i.e., theoretical articles, review articles, published guidelines, and reports) about what makes an effective school-based resilience program for adolescents. A total of 34 articles met the criteria for the review (47% empirical and 53% nonempirical). The collated data present a summary of who (e.g., sample demographics), how (e.g., research designs, the duration and number of posttest evaluations), and what has been studied (e.g., the types of programs and the types of outcomes). Randomized control trial evaluations (53%) and quasi-experimental designs (47%) were the common designs. The studies displayed large variation when it came to program delivery aspects such as number of lessons, length of the lessons, duration of the program, type of teaching, and program facilitators. Six themes were identified for creating effective universal school-based resilience programs: dual focus (ill-being and well-being), ethos and embedding, nurturing environment, adopting a systems approach, building teacher resilience, and fostering real-time resilience through implicit and explicit teaching. Suggestions for future research are provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".