School-based interventions to prevent anxiety and depression in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Journal
The lancet. Psychiatry
ISSN: 2215-0374
Titre abrégé: Lancet Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101638123
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
received:
21
06
2019
revised:
05
09
2019
accepted:
09
09
2019
pubmed:
18
11
2019
medline:
28
1
2020
entrez:
18
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Rates of anxiety and depression are increasing among children and young people. Recent policies have focused on primary prevention of mental disorders in children and young people, with schools at the forefront of implementation. There is limited information for the comparative effectiveness of the multiple interventions available. We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for published and unpublished, passive and active-controlled randomised and quasi-randomised trials. We included educational setting-based, universal, or targeted interventions in which the primary aim was the prevention of anxiety and depression in children and young people aged 4-18 years. Primary outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation, or self-harm. We assessed risk of bias following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) using random effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. The study is registered with PROPSERO, number CRD42016048184. 1512 full-text articles were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56 620 participants were included. 20 studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was weak evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural interventions might reduce anxiety in primary and secondary settings. In universal secondary settings, mindfulness and relaxation-based interventions showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms relative to usual curriculum (SMD -0·65, 95% credible interval -1·14 to -0·19). There was a lack of evidence to support any one type of intervention being effective to prevent depression in universal or targeted primary or secondary settings. Comparison-adjusted funnel plots suggest the presence of small-study effects for the universal secondary anxiety analysis. Network meta-analysis was not feasible for wellbeing or suicidal ideation or self-harm outcomes, and results are reported narratively. Considering unclear risk of bias and probable small study effects for anxiety, we conclude there is little evidence that educational setting-based interventions focused solely on the prevention of depression or anxiety are effective. Future research could consider multilevel, systems-based interventions as an alternative to the downstream interventions considered here. UK National Institute for Health Research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Rates of anxiety and depression are increasing among children and young people. Recent policies have focused on primary prevention of mental disorders in children and young people, with schools at the forefront of implementation. There is limited information for the comparative effectiveness of the multiple interventions available.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for published and unpublished, passive and active-controlled randomised and quasi-randomised trials. We included educational setting-based, universal, or targeted interventions in which the primary aim was the prevention of anxiety and depression in children and young people aged 4-18 years. Primary outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation, or self-harm. We assessed risk of bias following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) using random effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. The study is registered with PROPSERO, number CRD42016048184.
FINDINGS
1512 full-text articles were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56 620 participants were included. 20 studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was weak evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural interventions might reduce anxiety in primary and secondary settings. In universal secondary settings, mindfulness and relaxation-based interventions showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms relative to usual curriculum (SMD -0·65, 95% credible interval -1·14 to -0·19). There was a lack of evidence to support any one type of intervention being effective to prevent depression in universal or targeted primary or secondary settings. Comparison-adjusted funnel plots suggest the presence of small-study effects for the universal secondary anxiety analysis. Network meta-analysis was not feasible for wellbeing or suicidal ideation or self-harm outcomes, and results are reported narratively.
INTERPRETATION
Considering unclear risk of bias and probable small study effects for anxiety, we conclude there is little evidence that educational setting-based interventions focused solely on the prevention of depression or anxiety are effective. Future research could consider multilevel, systems-based interventions as an alternative to the downstream interventions considered here.
FUNDING
UK National Institute for Health Research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31734106
pii: S2215-0366(19)30403-1
doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30403-1
pmc: PMC7029281
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1011-1020Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K025643/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PHR/15/49/08
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Front Psychol. 2017 Jun 28;8:1066
pubmed: 28701980
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014 Sep;130(3):181-92
pubmed: 24697518
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:95-102
pubmed: 29196202
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;55(9):771-83
pubmed: 27566118
BMJ. 2016 Jan 27;352:i65
pubmed: 26819231
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2018 Dec;21(4):466-481
pubmed: 30105480
JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 Oct 1;74(10):1011-1020
pubmed: 28854296
Psychol Med. 2016 Jan;46(1):11-26
pubmed: 26315536
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 03;8(10):e76654
pubmed: 24098547
Lancet. 2018 Oct 27;392(10157):1553-1598
pubmed: 30314863
Br J Psychiatry. 2004 Jun;184:526-33
pubmed: 15172947
Soc Sci Med. 2010 May;70(10):1467-74
pubmed: 20207059
Psychol Med. 2019 Sep;49(12):1937-1947
pubmed: 31179960
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):376-90
pubmed: 24388291
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;56(3):370-93
pubmed: 25496340
Clin Psychol Rev. 2017 Feb;51:30-47
pubmed: 27821267
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014 Jul;48(7):606-16
pubmed: 24829198
BMC Public Health. 2015 Feb 12;15:130
pubmed: 25886385
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jun 2;162(11):777-84
pubmed: 26030634
Lancet. 2016 Aug 27;388(10047):881-90
pubmed: 27289172
World Psychiatry. 2019 Feb;18(1):111-112
pubmed: 30600627
Dev Sci. 2017 Mar;20(2):
pubmed: 26709037
BMJ. 2005 Oct 15;331(7521):897-900
pubmed: 16223826
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 18;(10):CD008704
pubmed: 24142844
Pediatrics. 2012 May;129(5):925-49
pubmed: 22473374
Arch Dis Child. 2018 Aug;103(8):720-721
pubmed: 29535112
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2016 Oct;25(5):428-435
pubmed: 26411384
Front Psychol. 2014 May 28;5:364
pubmed: 24904446
Value Health. 2014 Jul;17(5):642-54
pubmed: 25128059
Psychol Med. 2018 Sep;48(12):1945-1953
pubmed: 29368665
Am J Epidemiol. 2009 May 1;169(9):1158-65
pubmed: 19258485
J Affect Disord. 2019 Oct 1;257:568-584
pubmed: 31326690
PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001454
pubmed: 23723742
Lancet. 2014 Apr 19;383(9926):1404-11
pubmed: 24439298
Med Decis Making. 2005 Nov-Dec;25(6):646-54
pubmed: 16282215
Evid Based Ment Health. 2016 Feb;19(1):16-21
pubmed: 26792834
Lancet. 2011 Jun 18;377(9783):2093-102
pubmed: 21652063
Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2015 Jul;28(4):330-5
pubmed: 26001925
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 09;(8):CD003380
pubmed: 27501438