Prosocial behavior interventions implemented among undergraduate student populations: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Undergraduate students face a multitude of unique stressors which can affect their mental health and well-being. Finding ways to promote positive mental health among students is critical. Engagement in prosocial behavior is one way to buffer against such negative mental health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this scoping review was to determine what is known from the literature regarding the use of prosocial behavior interventions for undergraduate students' mental health and well-being. METHODS: Five databases were searched (i.e., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL) and articles were screened independently and simultaneously by 2 researchers. Seven articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. RESULTS: Three main themes and two subthemes were identified: (1) Types of Prosocial Behaviors Employed; (2) Recipients of Prosocial Behavior; and (3) Study Design and Intervention Impact (subthemes: Intervention Design and The Impact of Prosocial Behavior Interventions on Health Outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore prosocial behavior as a potential strategy to promote positive health outcomes in undergraduate students.
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 | 0.011 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".