moving policy upstream to advance adolescent flourishing ......from flourishing to languishing is...
Embed Size (px)
TRANSCRIPT

Moving Policy Upstream to Advance Adolescent Flourishing Rapid Evidence Review:Appendices
September 30, 2019

2
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 1: Key Definitions
Table of Contents
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 1: Key Definitions .......................................................................................................................................................3
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods .................................................................................................................................................................10
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................20
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome ..........................................................................................................................................31
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables ....................................................................................................................................................54
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 6: Excluded Reviews ..............................................................................................................................................124

3
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 1: Key Definitions
Moving Policy Upstream to Advance Adolescent Flourishing
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 1: Key Definitions
D. Dougherty, N. LeBlanc, P. Armstrong, E. Cope, and the AcademyHealth & ACT for Health Team
With support from Well Being Trust
September 30, 2019

4
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 1: Key Definitions
Key Definitions
Active School Travel/Transport. Non-motorized personal mobility (e.g., walking, cycling) to and from school.1
Cognitive Autonomy. Cognitive autonomy includes the ability to assess one’s thinking process and to make logical deductions, express one’s stance, create and consider different alternative and their outcomes, conduct validating comparisons, and self-evaluative and self-reflection skills. Thus, cognitive autonomy and self-efficacy tap complimentary self-beliefs and thinking skills that are integral to decision making processes.2
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). The key focus of CBT is on how individuals perceive and interpret meaning in their daily lives and often involves working to modify unhelpful or dysfunctional thoughts and behaviors through a variety of methods.3
Community. Communities are aggregates of people who form a loosely cohesive association within a residential space or district; they represent a subpopulation of a larger unit such as a city, or they can be indigenous and ethnic groups that may not reside in immediate residential proximity but possess a common community identity.4
Community Coalitions. Community coalitions are one strategy in the wider range of community‐based co‐operative programs that involve community members in programs to improve population health (e.g. community‐based participatory research, lay community health workers, advisory boards that include community members). Specifically, community coalitions are conglomerates of citizen groups, public and private organizations, and professions that are characterized by representation from multiple community sectors in bottom‐up planning and decision-making. They operate through partnerships and emphasize using local assets and resources to build community capacity. The focus of a community coalition may vary depending on the sectors of the community involved (e.g. education, public safety, public health).4
Community Infrastructure. The physical places and spaces where people can come together, formally or informally, to interact and par-ticipate in the social life of the community.5
Contemplative Education. Contemplative education is “a set of practices that may foster particular forms of awareness in students, forms conducive to the conscious motivation and regulation of learning, and also to freedom and transcendence in life more generally.”6 Exam-ples include Transcendental Meditation and Mindfulness.
Emotion Regulation (ER). Processes by which individuals respond to, manage, and modify emotional experiences in order to achieve individual goals and meet environmental demands.7
Emotional wellbeing. Emotional well-being involves the presence of positive emotions and satisfaction with life.8 In the early 2000s, Keyes measured emotional wellbeing as answers to how often during the past month teens ages 12 through 17 felt: happy; interested in life; and satisfied.9,10
Exergames. Also known as active (video) games, exergames allow players to perform physical activity over the course of play.11
Flourishing. According to a New Zealand Mental Health Foundation, flourishing as defined in international literature is a state where people experience positive emotions, positive psychological functioning and positive social functioning.12 Keyes posits that a spectrum from flourishing to languishing is part of a two-continua model of mental health.13 Keyes measured flourishing through moderate mental health, through languishing, for 12-17-year-old U.S. adolescents in an early 2000s nationally representative survey.9 Flourishing required an average score of 5 or 6 across items in the domains of emotional, psychological, and social wellbeing. Another definition of flourishing through languishing can be found in the U.S. federally-supported National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH), via responses to 3 items from parents of 6-17 year-olds.14,15 The items used by Keyes and the NSCH can be found in Appendix 2 of this document.

5
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 1: Key Definitions
Health Promoting Schools. The World Health Organization (WHO) Health Promoting Schools framework is based on an eco- holistic model, recognizing the physical, social, mental, emotional, and environmental dimensions of health and well-being. Three domains rec-ognize different levels of influence upon health - moving from the individual, to the school environment, to the wider community context - and emphasize the need to act upon all three levels in order to successfully influence health.16
Heritage-based interventions. Designing, modifying, and/or delivering historic places or assets as a key element of an activity that has an observed impact on people.17
Intangible Asset. As defined by the What Works Well Being Centre, intangible asset means things like traditional or cultural customs, practice, skills or knowledge.18
Gendered health programs.• Gender-neutral health programs. Health programs that did not incorporate any gender-focused aims or tailored interventions.19
• Gender-sensitive programs. Health programs that recognize the specific needs of their targeted gender in response to socialized gender roles, specifically tailoring program information to that target gender.19
• Gender-transformative programs. Health programs that aim to rework maladaptive gender roles and promote gender equitable relationships.19
Languishing. Languishing is the absence of positive mental health. Languishing individuals are those who are stuck in life, feel empty, and lack interest and engagement. Keyes defined languishing for teens ages 12 through 17 as an average score of 1 or 2 across items in the domains of emotional, psychological, and social wellbeing.9
Life Skills Training. Typically focused on teaching social resistance skills or a set of general life skills either alone or in combination.20
Loneliness.• Emotional loneliness describes the absence or loss of meaningful relationships that meet a deeply felt need to be recognized and ‘be-
long.’21
• Existential loneliness refers to an experience of feeling entirely separate from other people, often when confronted with traumatic experiences or mortality.21
• Social loneliness refers to the perceived lack of quantity as well as quality of relationships.21
Mental health promotion. Actions to create living conditions and environments that support mental health and allow people to adapt and maintain healthy lifestyles.22
Mindfulness. “Paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, nonjudgmentally,”23 or, “self-regulation of atten-tion to the conscious awareness of one’s immediate experiences while adopting an attitude of curiosity, openness, and acceptance.”24
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction. An 8-week group intervention that meets once per week for 2.5 h and has one all-day session towards the sixth week. Each session has specific formal mindfulness exercises (e.g., body scan, walking meditation) and encourages informal mindfulness practices outside of session, by bringing mindfulness to daily activities (e.g., showering, eating). Beyond the three mechanisms outlined above (focused attention, decentering, and emotion regulation), specific mechanisms of MBSR also include mindful-ness and self-compassion.25
Moderate mental health. In the flourishing through languishing continuum, individuals who are neither flourishing nor languishing are considered to have moderate mental health.8 Keyes defined moderate mental health for teens ages 12 through 17 as an average score of 3 or 4 across items in the domains of emotional, psychological, and social wellbeing.9

6
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 1: Key Definitions
Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Experiment. The MTO experiment randomized participants living in public housing or private assisted housing at baseline into experimental and control groups and provided a housing voucher for experimental group participants to move to neighborhoods with less than 10% of the population below the poverty line.26 The study took place between 1994 and 1997, in five U.S. cities (Boston, MA; Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY).
Positive Psychology. The study of the conditions and processes that contribute to the flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups, and institutions. It has four main categories of focus: positive emotions and their effects on psychological and physical functioning, positive individual traits and their protective role in different physical and psychological disorders, positive interpersonal relationships, and positive institutions.27
Positive Youth Development. PYD programs build skills, assets, and competencies; foster youth agency; build healthy relationships; strengthen the environment; and transform systems to prepare youth for successful adulthood.28
Preventive interventions. Preventive interventions are based on modifying risk exposure and strengthening the coping mechanisms of the individual. Effective interventions require identifying causal risk factors and can target both generic risk factors and disease-specific fac-tors. Most preventive intervention will likely involve a combination of strategies for reducing exposure to risk factors, enhancing protective factors, and targeting putative mediating causal mechanisms such as cognitive schemas. Primary preventive interventions in mental health are those targeting risk factors and promoting mental health in individuals without a clinically diagnosable mental disorder.29
Psychological wellbeing. Psychological well-being comprises aspects of individuals’ psychological functioning (e.g., autonomy and a sense of personal growth).8 The four theoretical domains of psychological wellbeing measured for teens ages 12 through 17 in a U.S. nationally representative survey were environmental mastery, positive relations with others, personal growth, and autonomy.8
Resilience. Most definitions of resilience have the same underlying recognition of the presence of adaptation/coping in response to risk/adversity/challenges. In other words, resilience develops in response to challenges, not in their absence, and the person (or system) can become stronger than before.30 Psychological resilience refers to a person’s capacity to adapt to the challenges of life and maintain mental health despite exposure to adversity.31
School climate. School climate is broadly defined as the values, relationships, practices, and structures that contribute to students’ experi-ences at school and encompasses members’ feelings of physical and emotional safety and the quality of their interpersonal relationships.32
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attain-ments. Self-efficacy is a key construct within several popular health psychology theories including social cognitive theory, protection motivation theory, transtheoretical model, health action process approach, and perceived behavioral control.33
Self-regulation. A psychological construct which encompasses a range of important competencies, including the capacity for control-ling one’s emotions, the ability to have positive interactions with others, the capacity for avoiding inappropriate or aggressive actions, and the ability to carry out self-directed learning. Cognitive processes contributing to SR are often referred to as executive functions, and they include the ability to direct or focus attention, shift perspective, and adapt flexibly to changes (cognitive flexibility); retain information (working memory); and inhibit automatic or impulsive responses to achieve a goal, such as problem-solving (impulse control).34
Social and Emotional Learning. Social and emotional competence is the ability to understand, manage, and express the social and emo-tional aspects of one’s life in ways that enable the successful management of life in ways that enable the successful management of life tasks such as learning, forming relationships, solving everyday problems, and adapting to the complex demands of growth and development. It includes self-awareness, control of impulsivity, working cooperatively, and caring about oneself and others. Social and emotional learning is the process through which children and adults develop the skills, attitudes, and values necessary to acquire social and emotional compe-tence.35

7
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 1: Key Definitions
Social isolation. The state in which the individual or group expresses a need or desire for contact with others but is unable to make that contact.36
Social wellbeing. Social well-being indicates how well an individual functions in their social life as a member of a larger society (e.g., social integration and social contribution.8 The four theoretical domains of social wellbeing measured for teens ages 12 through 17 in an early 2000s U.S. nationally representative survey were social contribution, social integration (sense of belongingness), social actualization (feel-ing that society is becoming a better place), social acceptance (feeling that people are basically good), and social coherence (feeling that the way our society works makes sense).9
Structural determinants. “All social and political mechanisms that generate … stratification and social class divisions in society and that define individual socioeconomic position within hierarchies of power, prestige and access to resources.” The structural determinants cause and operate through intermediary determinants of health—housing, physical work environment, social support, stress, nutrition and physical activity—to shape health outcomes.37
Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR). YPAR includes three key principles. First, YPAR is inquiry based; topics of investigation are grounded in youths’ lived experiences and concerns. Second, it is participatory; youth are collaborators in the methodological and pedagogical process. Finally, it is transformative; the purpose of YPAR is to actively intervene in order to change knowledge and prac-tices to improve the lives of youth and their communities. Consistent with these principles, Ozer and Douglas (2015) have identified key processes in YPAR. Youth and adults share power during an iterative process that includes developing an integrated research and action agenda; training in, and application of, research and advocacy methods; practicing and discussing strategic thinking about how to create social change; and building alliances with stakeholders.38

8
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 1: Key Definitions
Endnotes
1. Pang B, Kubacki K, Rundle-Thiele S. Promoting active travel to school: A systematic review. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2017 Aug 5 [cited 2019 July 26]; 17(1):638. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28779756
2. Margalit D, Ben-Ari A. The Effect of Wilderness Therapy on Adolescents’ Cognitive Autonomy and Self-Efficacy: Results of a Non-Randomized Trial. Child & Youth Care Forum [Internet]. 2014 Apr [cited 2019 Aug 15]; 43(2):181-194. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10566-013-9234-x
3. Soulakova B, Kasal A, Butzer B, Winkler P. Meta-Review on the Effective-ness of Classroom-Based Psychological Interventions Aimed at Improving Student Mental Health and Well-Being, and Preventing Mental Illness. The Journal of Primary Prevention [Internet]. 2019 May 28 [cited 2019 Aug 6]; 40(3):255-278. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10935-019-00552-5
4. Anderson LM, Adeney KL, Shinn C, Safranek S, Buckner-Brown J, Krause LK. Community coalition-driven interventions to reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minority populations. Cochrane Database of Sys-tematic Reviews [Internet]. 2015 Jun 15 [cited 2019 July 26]. Available from: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009905.pub2/full
5. Bagnall A, South J, Di Martino S. 2018, Mar. A systematic review of inter-ventions to boost social relations through improvements in community infrastructure (places and spaces). London: What Works Centre for Wellbe-ing. Available from: https://whatworkswellbeing.org/product/places-spaces-people-and-wellbeing/
6. Waters L, Barsky A, Ridd A, Allen K. Contemplative Education: A Sys-tematic, Evidence-Based Review of the effect of Meditation Interventions in Schools. Educational Psychology Review [Internet]. 2015 Mar [cited 2019 July 26]; 27(1):103-134. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-014-9258-2
7. Thomas RA. Emotion Regulation: A Theme in Search of Definition. Mono-graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development [Internet]. 1994 Feb [cited 2019 Aug 2]; 59(2-3):25-52. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-5834.1994.tb01276.x Cited By: Morrish L, Rickard N, Chin TC, Vella-Brodrick DA. Emotion Regulation in Ado-lescent Well-Being and Positive Education. Journal of Happiness Studies [Internet]. 2018 June [cited 2019 July 26]; 19(5):1543-1564. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-017-9881-y
8. Perugini MLL, de la Iglesia G, Solano, AC, Keyes CLM. 2017. The Mental Health Continuum–Short Form (MHC–SF) in the Argentinean context: Confirmatory factor analysis and measurement Invariance. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 13(1), 93–108, doi:10.5964/ejop.v13i1.1163
9. Keyes CLM. Mental health in adolescence: Is America’s youth flourishing? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry [Internet]. 2006 July [cited 2019 June 24]; 76(3):395-402. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16981819
10. Keyes CLM. 2005, January. The subjective well-being of America’s Youth: Toward a Comprehensive Assessment. Adolescent & Family Health 4(1):3- 11.
11. Joronen K, Aikasalo A, Suvitie A. Nonphysical effects of exergames on child and adolescent well-being: A comprehensive systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences [Internet]. 2017 Sep [cited 2019 July 26]; 31(3):449-461. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27862145
12. Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand. Undated. Flourishing, Positive Mental Health and Wellbeing: How can they be increased? https://www.mentalhealth.org.nz/assets/Flourishing/Flourishing-and-Positive-Mental-Health-Dec-2010.pdf
13. Westerhof GJ and Keyes CLM. 2010. Mental Illness and Mental Health: The Two Continua Model Across the Lifespan. J Adult Dev 17:110–119 DOI 10.1007/s10804-009-9082-y
14. The Child & Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. 2017. 2016 Na-tional Survey of Children’s Health. Available from: http://www.childhealth-data.org/browse/survey/ results?q=4621&r=1&g=609.
15. Bethell CD, Gombojav N, and Whitaker RC. 2019. Family resilience and connection promote flourishing among us children, even amid adversity.Health Affairs 38(5):729-737. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05425.
16. Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E, Komro KA, Gibbs LF, Magnus D, Campbell R. The WHO Health Promotion Schools Framework for Improving the Health and Well-Being of Students and their Academic Achievement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2019 Aug 7]; 4:CD008958. Available from: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008958.pub2/epdf/full
17. Pennington A, Jones R, Bagnall AM, South J, Corcoran R. Heritage and Wellbeing: The Impact of Historic Places and Assets on Community Well-being - A Scoping Review [Internet]. London (UK): What Works Centre for Wellbeing, Community Wellbeing Evidence Programme. 2019 March [cited 2019 Aug 16]. Available from: https://whatworkswellbeing.org/product/heritage-and-wellbeing-full-scoping-review/
18. How Can Intangible Assets Enhance Wellbeing or Reduce Loneliness? Evidence Call [Internet]. London (UK): What Works Centre for Wellbeing; 2019 July 8 [cited 2019 Aug 7]. Available from: https://whatworkswellbeing.org/call-for-evidence/how-can-intangible-assets-enhance-wellbeing-and-reduce-loneliness-evidence-call/
19. Gwyther K, Swann R, Cassey K, Purcell R, Rice SM. Developing Young Men’s Wellbeing Through Community and School-based Programs: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE [Internet]. 2019 May 20 [cited 2019 Aug 1]; 14(5):e0216955. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216955
20. Sancassiani F, Pintus E, Holte A, Paulus P, Moro MF, Cossu G, et al. Enhanc-ing the Emotional and Social Skills of the Youth to Promote their Wellbeing and Positive Development: A Systematic Review of Universal School-based Randomized Controlled Trials. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Men-tal Health [Internet]. 2015 Feb 26 [cited 2019 July 26]; 11(Suppl 1 M2):21-40. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25834626
21. Mansfield L, Daykin N, Meads C, Tomlinson A, Gray K, Lane J, Victor C. A Conceptual Review of Loneliness Across the Adult Life Course (16+ Years): Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. What Works Centre for Wellbeing [Inter-net]. 2019 July. Available from: https://whatworkswellbeing.org/product/loneliness-conceptual-review/
22. O’Reilly M, Svirydzenka N, Adams S, Dogra N. Review of mental health promotion interventions in schools. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology [Internet]. 2018 July [cited 2019 July 26]; 53(7):647-662. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29752493
23. Kabat-Zinn J. Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life. New York City (NY): Hachette Books. 1994. 278 p.
24. Bishop S, Lau M, Shapiro S, Carlson L, Anderson ND, Carmody J, et al. Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition. Clinical Psychology: Sci-ence and Practice [Internet]. 2004 September [cited 2019 Aug 7]; 11(3):230-241. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1093/clipsy.bph077
25. Zoogman S, Goldberg SB, Hoyt WT, Miller L. Mindfulness Interventions with Youth: A Meta-Analysis. Mindfulness [Internet]. 2015 Apr [cited 2019 July 26]; 6(2):290-302. Available from: https://link.springer.com/ar-ticle/10.1007/s12671-013-0260-4
26. Antonakis CL, Coulton CJ, Kaestner R, Lauria M, Porter DE, Colabianchi N. Built Environment Exposures of Adults in the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. Housing Studies [Internet]. 2019 Jun 25 [cited 2019 Aug 7]; (ePub ahead of print). Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02673037.2019.1630560

9
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 1: Key Definitions
27. Banos, Online Positive Interventions to Promote Well-being and Resilience in the Adolescent Population: A Narrative Review. Frontiers in Psychiatry [Internet]. 2017 Jan 30 [cited 2019 July 26]; 8:10. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28194117
28. Catalano RF, Skinner ML, Alvarado G, Kapungu C, Reavley N, Patton GC, et al.Positive Youth Development Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Conceptual Framework and Systematic Review of Efficacy. Journal of Adolescent Health [Internet]. 2019 July [cited 2019 July 26]; 65(1):15-31. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31010725
29. Arango C, Diaz-Caneja CM, McGorry PD, Rapoport J, Sommer IE, Vorst-man JA, et al. Preventive strategies for mental health. Lancet Psychiatry [Internet]. 2018 July [cited 2019 July 26]; 5(7):591-604. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29773478
30. Khanlou N, Wray R. A Whole Community Approach Toward Child and Youth Resilience Promotion: A Review of Resilience Literature. Interna-tional Journal of Mental Health and Addiction [Internet]. 2014 Jan 15 [cited 2019 Aug 7]; 12:64-79. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3913859/pdf/11469_2013_Article_9470.pdf
31. Masten AS. 2018. Resilience Theory and Research on Children and Fami-lies: Past, Present, and Promise. Journal of Family Theory & Review 10:1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jftr.12255
32. Trach J, Lee M, Hymel S. A Social-Ecological Approach to Addressing Emotional and Behavioral Problems in Schools: Focusing on Group Pro-cesses and Social Dynamics. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 2]; 26(1):11-20. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1063426617742346
33. Ashford S, Edmunds J, French DP. What is the best way to change self-efficacy to promote lifestyle and recreational physical activity? A systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology [Internet]. 2010 Dec 24 [cited 2019 Aug 16]; 15(2):265-288. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1348/135910709X461752
34. Pandey A, Hale D, Das S, Goddings AL, Blakemore SJ, Viner RM. Effective-ness of universal self-regulation-based interventions in children and adoles-cents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics [Internet]. 2018 Jun 1 [cited 2019 July 26]; 172(6):566-575. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29710097
35. Elias MJ, Zins JE, Weissberg RP, Frey KS, Greenberg MT, Haynes NM, et al. Promoting Social and Emotional Learning: Guidelines for Educators. Alexandria (VA): ASCD. 1997. 164 pp.
36. Carpenito, L.J. (1992). Nursing diagnosis: Application to clinical practice (4th ed). Philadelphia: P.J. Lippincott.
37. Solar O, Irwin A. A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health: Social Determinants of Health Discussion Paper 2 (Policy and Practice) [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010 [cited 2019 Aug 7]. Available from: http://nccdh.ca/resources/entry/a-conceptual-framework
38. Anyon et al. 2018. A Systematic Review of Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) in the United States: Methodologies, Youth Outcomes, and Future Directions.Health Education & Behavior 45(6) 865–878,citing Rodriguez and Brown, 2009; and Ozer and Douglas, 2015.

10
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
Moving Policy Upstream to Advance Adolescent Flourishing
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
D. Dougherty, N. LeBlanc, P. Armstrong, E. Cope, and the AcademyHealth & ACT for Health Team
With support from Well Being Trust
September 30, 2019

11
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
Rapid Evidence Review Methods
Overview
The purpose of this Rapid Evidence Review (RER) is to identify interventions and strategies for enhancing the psychological, social, and emotional well-being of high-school-aged teens.1 The project is supported by Well Being Trust, as a component of their development of an overarching framework and strategy for enhancing the psychological, social, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing of the U.S. population. Consistent with the AcademyHealth approach to conducting Rapid Evidence Reviews, we leverage existing systematic reviews of inter-ventions, strategies, and policies, identified by searching for outcomes conceptually related to the definition of psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing, as defined initially by Keyes2 and expanded on through ACT for Health’s previous scoping reviews.3,4
In identifying systematic reviews, we followed PRISMA’s definition of a systematic review as “a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review.”5
To guide our work, we developed a Rapid Evidence Review Protocol specific to this project, which was reviewed in draft by 2 Key Expert Reviewers6 and members of the project’s National Expert Panel.7
Concepts
What is Teen Psychological, Social, and Emotional Wellbeing?
There is no single set of definitions of psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing applied to interventions for teens, but a brief history of recent work suggests an emerging convergence.
In the early 2000s, Keyes and colleagues constructed a measure of subjective (psychological, social, and emotional [PSEWB]) wellbeing for 12-18 year-olds based on measures of adult psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing, and using items from the Child Development Supplement—II (CDS-II) in a nationally representative survey (see items in Box 1).2,8 Keyes and colleagues aimed in part to see if previous-ly identified dimensions of adult subjective wellbeing applied to younger people.9 Purpose in life and self-acceptance were not measured in the CDS-II because self-esteem, a closely related measure of self-acceptance, was already part of the CDS, and purpose in life did not seem to be a pertinent question for pre-high school youth, and they wanted to obtain measures on all youth between the ages of 12 and 18. Keyes used scores from the measure to assess teens on a scale from flourishing to languishing. “Flourishing” required an average score of 5 or 6 across the items. “Languishing” required an average score of 1 or 2 across the items. Moderate mental health required an average score of 3 or 4 across the items. The work by Keyes also contributed to an emerging movement to add rigorous measures of children’s positive health and wellbeing to government reports.10
Similar approaches to conceptualizing teen flourishing include the characterization of outcomes of Positive Youth Development (PYD) as the 5 C’s: Confidence, Character, Caring, Competence, and Contribution.11 However, the framing of positive youth development and simi-lar concepts like resilience is changing along the lines of a Relational Developmental Systems metatheory.12,13 Further, continuing work on the PYD model is resulting in proposed additions to the 5 Cs, such as critical consciousness of socioeconomics,14 and calls to consider the potential downsides of some 5 C components (e.g., “caring too much”).15 The federally sponsored National Survey of Children’s Health also reports its own metrics of flourishing and languishing for 12-17 year-olds, as reported by parents rather than teens themselves. The 3 items in the measure are meant to capture “curiosity and discovery about learning; resilience; and self-regulation,” by using the following 3 items (1) child shows interest and curiosity in learning new things, (2) child works to finish tasks he or she starts, and (3) child stays calm and in control when faced with a challenge. If the adolescent’s parent or guardian answers “definitely true” to 0-1 flourishing items, the adolescent is classified as “languishing.”16
A recently developed survey – Youth THRIVETM –measures 5 groups of protective and promotive factors–youth resilience, social connec-tions, knowledge of adolescent development, concrete support in times of need, and cognitive and social-emotional competence–using 66 adolescent self-report items.17 The primary purpose of the survey is to provide baseline and progress data for youth-serving organizations (e.g., child welfare, juvenile justice), although the developers say it can be used with any teen population. The factors and subfactors include most of those used as positive outcomes in the systematic reviews included in this RER. Youth THRIVETM does not measure some of the

12
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
outcomes in the RER, such as symptoms related to psychiatric disorders (depression, anxiety, internalizing symptoms, externalizing symp-toms, stress), suicidal thoughts, gender ideology, and stigma related to mental illness.
Conceptually, this RER uses the Keyes conceptual framework of flourishing defined as high levels, and languishing as low levels, of psycho-logical, social, and emotional wellbeing. However, the systematic reviews and large-scale studies use their own terminology for outcomes (and interventions), which we adhere to rather than try to force the labels into any particular framework.
Search Strategy
Figure 1 shows the Boolean search term strategy used for this review. Given the wide variation in database search capabilities, we modified searches as appropriate for the databases utilized in this review. Searches began by filtering for review method and publication or posting data (Column 1). Next, target populations (Column 2), using grouped keywords and the Boolean “OR” operator, were added, followed by grouped keywords for measured outcomes (Column 3). In order to obtain reviews of studies of interventions, strategies, or policies at various ecological levels, we used terms commonly employed in their discussion or implementation, terms from our ecological framework, terms related to specific settings, and the phrase “AND (universal)” (Column 4).
Box 1. Items in Keyes’ Measurement of Psychological, Social, and Emotional Wellbeing in 12-18-year olds: Child Development Supplement-II (CDS-II) Included in the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics, 2002-3
Emotional well-being
Three items that asked youth how often during the past month they had felt: (1) happy(2) interested in life(3) satisfied
Psychological wellbeing
Four of the six theoretical dimensions of psychological well-being, and the survey items measuring them were: 1. Environmental mastery: “how often did you feel good at managing the responsibilities of your daily life”?2. Positive relations with others: “how often did you feel that you have warm and trusting relationships with other kids?”3. Personal growth: “how often did you feel that you have experiences that challenge you to grow or become a better person?”, and 4. Autonomy: “how often did you feel confident to think or express your own ideas and opinions?”
Social wellbeing
Five dimensions of social well-being were measured in the CDS-II. 1. Social contribution: “How often did you feel that you had something important to contribute to society?” 2. Social integration: “how often did you feel that you belonged to a community like a social group, your school, or your neighborhood?” 3. Social actualization: “how often did you feel that our society is becoming a better place?” 4. Social acceptance: “how often did you feel that people are basically good?” 5. Social coherence: “how often did you feel that the way our society works made sense to you?”

13
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
Figure 1. Search terms used for this Rapid Evidence Review
Column 1.Systematic
Review; Publication/
Posting Dates
AND Column 2. Population AND
Column 3.Outcomes
ANDColumn 4.
Intervention Indicator
Systematic review Adolescen* Flourish* (Interven* OR policy OR strategy* OR program OR training OR cur-ricular OR initiative)
Scoping review Youth Languish* (School OR education OR parent OR family OR nation* OR fed-eral OR state OR community OR neighborhood OR employment OR workplace OR “social environ-ment” OR “school climate”)
Rapid review Teen* (Psychological OR emotional OR social OR mental) AND (wellbeing OR well-being)
Universal
Review High school students
(Psychological OR (positive AND mental) OR social OR emotional) AND health
Year (2014-2019) Secondary school students
Positive youth development
(Stress OR anger OR fear OR hostil-ity OR loneliness OR internalizing OR externalizing OR intolerance OR racism OR ((racial OR ethnic) AND (discrimina-tion OR prejudice)) OR stigma OR bias OR (suicidal AND thoughts)
(Fulfilment OR “sense of meaning” OR purpose OR “sense of purpose” OR hope* OR “belief in the future” OR balance OR (life AND satisfaction) OR “quality of life”)
(Resilien* OR grit)
(self-efficacy OR self-confidence OR self-perception OR identity OR self-image OR self-esteem)
(Pro-social or “social participation” OR “social competence” OR “social skills” OR “social well-being” OR empath* OR attachment OR connectedness OR engagement OR “positive relationships” OR forgiveness OR respect)
(Social AND (isolation OR avoidance))
(Violence OR bullying OR victimization)
(“Emotional competence” OR “emotion-al skills” OR “emotion regulation” OR (positive AND affect) OR mindfulness)

14
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
We searched for universal, population-based, interventions for both practical and scientific reasons. The practical considerations stem from our use of a “review of reviews” approach. Once they have identified their target population, review authors typically provide limited additional details about the characteristics of target populations in included studies. In addition, to our knowledge, no well-being or other deliberate intervention has been applied universally to the entire teen population of the world, so no study is population-based in its most comprehensive definition.
Scientifically, one can justify 13-18 year-olds as a distinct population, at least within high income countries.18 Reasons include: (1) the seemingly universal nature of distinct neuro-developmental changes;19,20 (2) the apparently universal exposure to common social environ-ments or determinants of health, such as widespread public misunderstanding of the nature of adolescence;21 (3) the common experi-ence of intense academic and other pressures; (4) legal status of most 13-18 year-olds as minors, and so, limited in their capacity to act autonomously; and (5) the substantial percentages of teens experiencing psychological distress without identified modifiable risk factors that would allow a targeted approach to interventions.22,23,24,25 In addition, population-based, universal interventions may provide more opportunities to trade reactive, deficit-oriented strategies for those that are proactive, empowering, and strengths-based,26 and may be able to provide a broad-based “foundation for well-being and effective functioning.”27 This RER did not search for reviews or studies of inter-ventions, policies, or strategies focused on distinct subpopulations of adolescents at risk for languishing, and especially not teen subpopula-tions with diagnosed mental disorders, even though they too may benefit from universal well-being interventions.28 We do include in our evidence tables additional characteristics of teens if they are provided by review authors. We hope that future work can analyze and build on our broad-based evidence base to enable targeting within universalism.29
Also due to practical and theoretical considerations (e.g., size of search fields in databases), we did not include a list of interventions, strategies, or policies as search terms (e.g., mindfulness interventions) in our initial searches. However, when we learned of new or newly popular types of interventions, strategies, or policies seemingly related to enhancing PSEWB ,we conducted rapid searches of key databases
Figure 1. Search terms used for this Rapid Evidence Review (cont’d)
Column 1.Systematic
Review; Publication/
Posting Dates
AND Column 2. Population AND
Column 3.Outcomes
ANDColumn 4.
Intervention Indicator
(“Moral competence” OR “Moral skills” OR “behavioral competence” OR “behavioral skills” OR (“non-cognitive” AND (competence OR skills))
(Coping OR help-seeking OR ((mental AND health) AND awareness))
(Identity AND (exploration OR commit-ment))
(Belonging OR autonomy OR indepen-dence OR functioning)
(Growth AND mindset)
((Collective AND efficacy) OR (collective AND well-being))
Friendship OR (neighbor* AND relation*)
((Social AND wellbeing) OR (social AND capital) OR (social AND inclusion) OR (community AND resilience))

15
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
(e.g., PubMed, Google Scholar, What Works Wellbeing Centre) to find systematic reviews that focused on specific interventions and teen psychological, social, or emotional wellbeing outcomes. Examples of such topics include: school climate; loneliness-focused interventions; social media; digital mental health; racism; racial- or ethnic-discrimination interventions; nature (blue or green space). However, for the most part, our RER search can be considered an outcomes-based search strategy.
Inclusion/Exclusion Process and Reliability Checks
Figure 2 details the procedure, derived from PRISMA Statement,5 through which articles found during our search were selected for inclu-sion in this rapid review.
The task of performing initial searches was split by database among three team members, who then screened for relevant titles. After initial screening for titles, another team member would rescreen the same search results and the two team members then resolved any discrepan-cies.
After developing a shortlist of agreed-upon titles, full-paper assessment was conducted by one team member and any recommendations for inclusion into, or exclusion from, the final RER report were checked by a second team member. Differences were resolved by group discussion. Rationales for exclusion included one or more of the following; failure to assess psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing (PSEWB) outcomes; failure to include any high-school-aged teen (13-18 years of age) samples; lack of PSEWB intervention or program; lack of a universal intervention; and failure to qualify as a systematic review. When assessing whether a review was teen-focused, if a study included participants older or younger than our desired demographic we considered that study to be teen-focused if either of the following two conditions were met: 1) more than 50% of the sample population fell within our desired age range, or, 2) the mean age of the sample population was within our desired age range. This careful evaluation of teen-focused studies occasionally led us to exclude an entire review because of a lack of PSEWB findings for our focus age group.

16
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
Figure 2. Rapid Evidence Review article selection process
3,497 records published after 2014 identified during initial search of PubMed, Health Evidence, Campbell Collabora-tion, Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, What Works Clearinghouse, What Works Centre for Wellbeing, Cochrane Collaboration, and Google Scholar.
3,406 records excluded after review of title (or abstract if title failed to provide sufficient information) because they were du-plicates or failed to meet inclusion criteria. 18 records included after discovery through databases alerts (e.g., Google Alerts) and title screening.
109 records were retained. The full text of these records was retrieved and assessed.
43 records were excluded after examination of the full articles.
• Not a systematic review n=19• No intervention/program n=2• Adolescents excluded n=9• No Psychological, Social, or Emotional Well-Being
outcomes n=10• Not a universal intervention n=3
The full papers for 66 records published between January 2014 and end of July 2019 were further examined and 34 of these were excluded if:
• They were published between January 2014 and December 2017, unless they focused on interventions for which there was no SR published in 2018 or 2019 OR
• On closer examination they did not meet criteria for the RER (see previous box)
• We were unable to obtain a copy of the Systematic Review
34 full SRs were retained.
Subsequently, due to the retention of such a large number (66) of SRs, we decided to exclude any systematic reviews published prior to January 2018, unless they covered a topic for which we had not identified a SR published in 2018 and 2019. For example, when we found that no reviews identified through our searches covered the effects of parenting interventions for parents of teens, we added the systematic review by Yap et al. published by 2016 that we had identified in the previous ACT for Health scoping reviews.
Further, when we found that no reviews identified through our searches covered the effects of income supplementation, we added studies with findings for teen PSEWB from the large randomized trials known as Moving to Opportunity and the Great Smoky Mountains experiment.

17
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
Our focus is on interventions delivered to teens when they are high-school-aged. For example, we did not include studies such as the large-scale community-level-intervention “Communities That Care” (CTC) study. The CTC intervention occurred while the teens were in grades 5 through 8, and appears to have measured PSEWB outcomes only at the end of grade 8.30 Substance use and delinquency were the main outcomes of interest for CTC.
Reviews that were excluded from the final RER report at any stage of assessment, along with accompanying rationale, are listed in Appendix 6.
Analysis: Evidence Tables
Retained full review papers were then synthesized in tabular format. These Evidence Tables can be found in Appendix 5 and note the fol-lowing components of a review:
1. Focus of the Reviewa. All age/developmental groups included in the review.b. Age/developmental groups included that are relevant to high-school-aged teens (ages 13-18).c. Intervention type, name, and definition – overall. d. Intervention type, name, and definition – examined for 13-18-year-olds or equivalent (specified by study, and included in a “Teen
Table” at the end of the Evidence Table, if information was available).31
e. Outcomes examined overall (including all, but highlighting PSEWB outcomes).f. Outcomes examined for 13-18-year-olds or equivalent (and included in the Teen Table) g. Outcomes examined regarding social/built environments and/or people surrounding 13-18-year-olds (specified by study if necessary
and for whom/what it is measured). h. Settings for the intervention/program, Country(ies)/State(s)/Region(s)/Locality(ies) for the intervention/program, and ecological
level of the intervention/program (e.g., national, community/neighborhood, school, family, work, recreation, OST).
2. Systematic Review Methodsa. Date range for the review.b. Databases searched for the review.c. Review inclusion criteria (focusing on study methodology). d. Review exclusion criteria (focusing on study methodology).e. Guidance used to structure the review (e.g., PRISMA, GRADE).
3. Relevant Findingsa. Number of studies included in the reviewb. High level findings (e.g., for all ages/developmental groups, especially if data on teens specifically was not included).c. Adolescent-specific findings (related to 13-18-year-olds or similar).
4. Systematic Review Limitationsa. Limitations noted by the review author.b. Limitations noted by AcademyHealth (if any).
If a systematic review did not report findings separately for our targeted age group, but did provide sufficiently detailed information about included studies by age or similar relevant characteristic (e.g., study took place in high school), we added an additional table at the end of our evidence tables, noting the teen studies and their findings.

18
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
Endnotes
1. Approximately 13- through 18-years-old.
2. Keyes CLM. Mental health in adolescence: Is America’s youth flourishing? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry [Internet]. 2006 July [cited 2019 June 24]; 76(3):395-402. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16981819
3. Dougherty D and Wittenberg RL. (2017, June). Promoting adolescent social and emotional well-being: Can a culture of health approach help? Poster presented at the AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting, Child Health Services Research Interest Group pre-conference. New Orleans, LA.
4. ACT for Health. (2018, June). ACT for Health Scoping Review. (Unpub-lished evidence tables for 22 reviews of non-school-based interventions to promote high-school-aged psychological, social, and emotional well-being).
5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2019 Aug 19]; 6(7):e1000097. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
6. Eric Fein, MD, UCLadA; and Anthony James, PhD, Miami University of Ohio.
7. NEP members are: Johanna Bergan, Youth MOVE National; Christina D. Bethell, PhD, Professor, Bloomberg School of Public Health; Director, Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative (CAHMI), Johns Hopkins University; Anne Collier, M.A., Executive Director of the Net Safety Collab-orative; Angela Diaz, MD., Director of the Adolescent Health Center, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai; Nadine Gracia, MD, MSCE., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Trust for America’s Health; Vicki Harrison, MSW., Program Director of the Center for Youth Mental Health and Wellbeing, Stanford University; Corey Keyes, PhD., Founder of Simply Flourishing, Emory University; Michelle Kim Leff, MD, MBA, CAPT, USPHS, NIDA Technology Development Coordinator, IRP Chief of Staff, National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Institute of Health, Balti-more, MD; Matt Soeth, M.E.d., Founder of #ICANHELP, Teacher College of San Joaquin; Shawn Sprecker, Strategy Consultant and Data Privacy Expert, #ICANHELP; Qi Wang, PhD, Director of the Culture and Social Cognition Lab, Cornell University.
8. Keyes CLM. 2005, January. The subjective well-being of America’s Youth: Toward a Comprehensive Assessment. Adolescent & Family Health 4(1):3-11.
9. The items were adapted from the Midlife in the United States (MIUS) study of adults. The items were administered for the first time to youth ages 12-18 in the CDS-II of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Respondents were asked how often in the past month they had the specified feeling.
10. Moore KA and Lippman L. 2005. Letter from the Editor. Adolescent & Fam-ily Health 4(1): 1.
11. https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wi4hvolunteers/files/2017/09/1-5-Cs-Hand-out-Lerner-2007.pdf
12. Lerner RM, Brindis CD, Batanova M, and Blum RW. 2018. Adolescent health development: A relational developmental systems perspective. In N. Halfon et al. (eds.), Handbook of Life Course Health Development. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-47143-3.pdf
13. RDS is characterized by a process-relational paradigm that focuses on process (systematic changes in the developmental system), becoming (moving from potential to actuality), holism (the meanings of entities and events depend on context), relational analysis (assessment of the mutu-ally influential relations within the developmental system), and the use of multiple perspectives and explanatory forms. The developing organism is seen as: inherently active, self-creating, self-organizing, self-regulating, non-linear/complex, and adaptive. The nature of natural developmental changes during adolescence makes teens more likely to have and be aware of these characteristics.
14. Tyler CP, Geldhof GJ, Black KL, Bowers EP. Critical Reflection and Positive Youth Development among White and Black Adolescents: Is Understand-ing Inequality Connected to Thriving? Journal of Youth and Adolescence [Internet]. 2019 Aug 4 [cited 2019 Sep 27]: 1-15. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01092-1
15. Geldhof GJ, Larsen T, Urke H, Holsen I, Lewis H, Tyler CP. Indicators of Positive Youth Development Can Be Maladaptive: The Example Case of Caring. Journal of Adolescence [Internet]. 2019 Feb [cited 2019 Sep 27]; 71:1-9. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140197118302069.
16. The Child & Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. 2016 Na-tional Survey of Children’s Health [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Sep 27]. Available from: http://www.childhealthdata.org/browse/survey/results?q=4621&r=1&g=609.
17. Center for the Study of Social Policy. Youth THRIVE Survey User’s Manual. Washington DC: CSSP.
18. The World Bank Group. How does the World Bank classify countries? [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Sep 27]. Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/378834-how-does-the-world-bank-classify-countries
19. Jernigan TL & Brown SA. Introduction. Developmental Cognitive Neuro-science [Internet]. 2018 Aug [cited 2019 Sep 27]; 32:1-3. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29496476
20. Dahl RE, Allen NB, Wilbrecht L, Suleiman AB. Importance of Investing in Adolescene from a Developmental Science Perspective. Nature [Internet]. 2018 Feb 21 [cited 2019 Sep 27]; 554(7693):441-450. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29469094
21. Frameworks Institute. Adolescent Development Page [Internet]. Washing-ton (DC): Frameworks Institute; 2016 [Updated 2018 Dec 17; cited 2019 June 27]. Available from: https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/adolescence.html
22. Bethune, S. APA Stress in AmericaTM Survey: Generation Z Stressed About Issues in the News but Least Likely to Vote [Internet]. Washington (DC): APA Stress in AmericaTM Press Room; 2018 Oct 30 [cited 2019 June 27]. Available from: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/10/genera-tion-z-stressed
23. Horowitz JM and Graf N. Most U.S. Teens See Anxiety and Depression as a Major Problem Among Their Peers [Internet]. Washington (DC): Pew Research Center; 2019 Feb 20 [cited 2019 June 27]. Available from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/02/20/most-u-s-teens-see-anxiety-and-depression-as-a-major-problem-among-their-peers/
24. Graf N. A majority of U.S. teens fear a shooting could happen at their school and most parents share their concern [Internet]. Washington (DC): Pew Research Center; 2018 Apr 18 [cited 2019 June 27]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/18/a-majority-of-u-s-teens-fear-a-shooting-could-happen-at-their-school-and-most-parents-share-their-concern/
25. Forrest CB, Simpson L, Clancy C. Child health services research: Chal-lenges and opportunities. JAMA [Internet]. 1997 Jun 11 [cited 2019 June 27]; 277(22): 1787-1793. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9178792
26. Herrenkohl TI. Cross-System Collaboration and Engagement of the Public Health Model to Promote the Well-Being of Children and Families. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research [Internet]. 2019 July 9 [cited 2019 July 18]; Ahead of Print. Available from: https://www.journals.uchi-cago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/704958

19
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 2: Methods
27. World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Promoting Mental Health: Concepts, Emerging Evidence, Practice [Internet]. Geneva (CH): Marketing and Dissemination, World Health Organization; 2004 [cited 2019 June 27]. Available from: https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/en/promoting_mhh.pdf
28. Greenberg MT & Abenavoli R. 2017. Universal Interventions: Fully Explor-ing Their Impacts and Potential to Produce Population-Level Impacts. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 July 18]; 10(1): 40-67. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19345747.2016.1246632
29. Powell JA, Menendian S, Ake W. Targeted Universalism: Policy & Practice [Internet]. Berkeley (CA): University of California, Berkeley, Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society; 2019 May [cited 2019 June 27]. Available from: https://www.socalgrantmakers.org/sites/default/files/resources/tar-geted_universalism_primer.pdf
30. According to the Communities That Care website: By the end of Grade 8, panel youths from CTC communities reported higher levels than controls of all the protective factors that support positive youth development identified in the social development strategy. Social skills, interaction with prosocial peers, school recognition for prosocial involvement, and community oppor-tunities for prosocial involvement were significantly improved among CTC panel youth. https://www.communitiesthatcare.net/research-results/.
31. If supporting information was available in the review, or through the review’s supplementary materials, we created a supplemental table of studies focused on adolescents, high-schools, or secondary schools following the aforementioned criteria for teen-focused studies. These tables were added at the end of the Evidence Table for any review for which it was necessary to understand the impacts of interventions on high-school-based teens specifi-cally and for which the information was available in the publication under review. These “Teen Tables” listed the review publication’s first author; the teen ages in the group or similar; the specific intervention assessed; study findings; and, as relevant, any notes relevant to understanding the study findings.

20
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
Moving Policy Upstream to Advance Adolescent Flourishing
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
D. Dougherty, N. LeBlanc, P. Armstrong, E. Cope, and the AcademyHealth & ACT for Health Team
With support from Well Being Trust
September 30, 2019

21
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
Narrative Summary of Findings
Findings from the Rapid Evidence Review
The Rapid Evidence Review found that reviews related to teen wellbeing include studies at the national, community, including school, interpersonal, and individual-teen levels, but not the global or cultural level (Figure 1 in Summary of Findings).
Few systematic reviews address levels other than the individual teen level (in which efforts are made directly with teens themselves). A few studies at the national/community, school, interpersonal, and individual level also measured effects at the community and school levels (community wellbeing), findings that can suggest potential moderators of effects on teen flourishing.
Effects on community well being of national, community, school, and interpersonal level strategies
Different approaches have been tried, or occurred naturally, at the combined national-community level, community and school levels, interpersonal, and multiple levels of our socio-ecological framework. The combined national/community level intervention “Moving to Opportunity” (MTO) housing assistance experiment in 5 U.S. cities,1 resulted in improved community environments (e.g., better food choices; decreased neighborhood-level percent poverty; less intense development; fewer gangs; more exposure to nature), but diverse im-pacts on families (e.g., more housing discrimination in the new neighborhoods). Efforts in the U.K. to improve community environments had multiple positive effects on neighborhoods (e.g., more green and blue space; social cohesion, neighborhood pride) although not all effects were positive.
School-level teen wellbeing strategies attempt to change high school environments so that they function better for all stakeholders. For example, a review of mindfulness training for elementary and high school teachers improved educators’ psychological distress and psycho-logical wellbeing, but not classroom climate or teaching practices. An intervention with teen participants also measured effects on commu-nity wellbeing. A review of “youth inquiry” approaches (e.g., youth participation in research) found changes at the exosystem (school, city, state level policy adoption), meso-system (research benefits); and microsystem levels (practitioner growth; peer group norms).
Effects on teen flourishing indicators of national, community, school, and interpersonal level strategies
National/community level intervention effects on teens. We found relatively few large studies or reviews have tested the teen wellbeing effects of efforts to change the environments within which teens live (national/community, community, community/school, interpersonal). Most of the interventions at these levels had a broader focus than solely enhancing wellbeing of teen participants. Further, the MTO ex-periment’s teen results appear to depend on a number of factors, such as the age at which adolescents move, their gender, and characteris-tics of the new neighborhood and city. In the MTO experiment, psychological distress was reduced for girls in 4 out of 5 cities, and did not change among boys in any city.
Community level intervention effects on teens. A natural experiment that occurred halfway through the Great Smoky Mountains child mental health epidemiological study had mixed effects on teen wellbeing. A new American Indian-run casino began sharing its profits with tribal families, increasing their monthly incomes. The Great Smoky Mountains income supplement reduced oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder symptoms but not anxiety and depression symptoms.
Observers of both studies suggest that more careful attention to teen developmental factors in connection with change processes during the interventions could result in more positive results. For example, researchers suggest that moving teenage boys after age 13 may be too disruptive and teen boys may be more likely than girls to return to their old neighborhoods rather than seek new friends.
School- level intervention effects on teens. Many school districts are being pressured to change school start times for teens, based on new research showing that teen sleep cycles are natural and not easily modifiable, but have not been factored into decisions about school start times. A few studies, mostly small and in single schools, have been included in reviews. Earlier school start times in these studies found mixed but largely positive effects, improving school-night sleep duration and some mental health measures. A mindfulness based whole-school mental health promotion intervention resulted in moderate reductions in low-grade depressive symptoms.

22
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
Interpersonal-level intervention effects on teens. Interpersonal interventions involve efforts to change family or peer behavior and relationships. The one existing review relevant to helping parents of teens found only 3 studies, with a mix of positive (reduced depressive symptoms) and no impact.
Efforts to change teens’ attitudes, feelings, and behavior by intervening with the teens themselves
Interventions that aim to change teens’ attitudes, feelings, and behavior by intervening with the teens themselves are by far the most com-mon approach to enhancing teen flourishing. Their findings are summarized by strategy type or strategy component in Table 1. For a va-riety of reasons, the summaries in Table 1 should not be used as a definitive guide to which individual-teen-level evidence-based strategies should proceed to widespread implementation.2 For example, the same strategies may be described using a variety of labels by different reviewers and over time. Some of the reported findings rely on one to a few studies identified as teen-relevant within broader reviews, while others come from composite effect sizes from multiple studies.
The broadest reviews were of universal resilience-focused interventions, universal school-based mental health promotion strategies, and universal school-based mental health interventions in the context of Multi-tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS). The focus on resilience-based interventions is from a 2017 review and suggests little reason to have confidence in the effectiveness of this intervention type, except for internalizing symptoms. Recent observers have noted that attempts to make individual people more resilient can be wrongheaded, when the ecological focus should be on changing potentially harmful environments. Universal school-based mental health promotion strategies reviewed found positive outcomes for anger, sigma, and suicidal ideation, and the review of the school-based interventions in the MTSS context found mixed effects on depressive symptoms.
Skeen et al. recently estimated the effectiveness of specific components of universal adolescent mental health programs on 4 broad outcome groupings, including 2 types that we include in this RER (positive mental health promotion outcomes; anxiety and depression symptoms). Skeen reports that positive mental health promotion outcomes have been positively affected by specific components (alcohol and drug education, emotional regulation, interpersonal skills, and skills to resist peer pressure), although the effect sizes varied consider-ably, and some components worked better for some outcomes than others. Skeen et al. also questioned why the alcohol and drug education strategies worked for positive mental health. Some of the same components that were effective for positive mental health were also effective for anxiety and depression symptoms (emotional regulation and interpersonal skills), but others (conflict resolution, goal setting, problem-solving) were effective for anxiety and depression symptom reduction but not for positive mental health promotion outcomes. Skeen et al. differentiated between face-to-face and digital or digital-and-combined mechanisms for delivery.
A few interventions can be considered “digital.” They varied in effectiveness. BiteBack (an online positive mental health intervention) was effective for improving total symptom scores, but not life satisfaction. E-health4U improved mental health; mass media digital platforms reduced stigma among teens, but mobile apps and phone-based multimedia messages were not able to reduce depressive symptoms.
Multiple reviews, with multiple outcomes, measured the strategies of exercise, yoga, mindfulness, mentoring (separately and under the umbrella of social and emotional skills development), and social and emotional skills development, broadly defined. Both positive and no impacts were found for each of these types.
Several less-studied strategies showed at least one positive impact on psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing. These include creative activities, community sports participation, suicide prevention, and youth-led community development programs.
Only single reviews covered interventions to improve young males’ wellbeing, video interventions, and interventions to increase interac-tions with nature. All had mixed effects.

23
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
Findings for subpopulations of teens
As noted previously, a limitation of the review of reviews approach is the paucity of consistent and useful information about teen and other subpopulations. However, some reviews and studies focused on subpopulations. For example, Catalano focused on low- and middle-income countries, and Gwyther focused on interventions and outcomes for males. Some reviews provided information about the nature of the studies they included on gender, race, socioeconomic status, urbanicity/rurality, geography, school type, school location, and achieve-ment levels.3
Limitations and Implications for the Future
This RER and the reviews and studies included have limitations. As explained in Appendix 2 (Methods), the RER limited its searches to universal, population-based, interventions and did not look for targeted interventions to advance flourishing for teens at potentially higher risk of languishing.4 In addition, the findings presented in summary tables should be interpreted carefully and not taken as indicators of relative effectiveness. The tables include a mix of high-level findings from systematic reviews, often covering relatively broad age ranges; and findings from original research studies included in broader reviews but focused on teens and/or psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing outcomes.
Across reviews, terminology for adolescent and other populations, interventions, and outcomes is used inconsistently; we followed the way reviewers and study authors labeled populations, interventions, and outcomes.
Since our search strategy was primarily outcome-based, it is possible we may have missed some reviews that gave more weight to interven-tion keywords.
Our analytic focus on reviews published in 2018 and 2019, while reasonable because of recent conceptual advances and methodological improvements in both study and review processes, may have missed older reviews with relevant outcomes or interventions.
The nature of the reviews precluded conduct of a meta-analysis of findings for teens.
An important limitation beyond our control is the nature of the evidence. Almost every systematic review notes methodological challenges in their included studies (see Evidence Tables in Appendix 5). Many of the studies included in reviews suffer from threats to both internal and external validity, because of small sample sizes and single-site implementation. The use of home-grown metrics rather than validated instruments is an issue noted in several reviews. Funding for psychological and social science interventions, and for research focused on teens and/or wellbeing outcomes, is traditionally very limited, relative to medical research on adults. Those wishing to evaluate such inter-ventions may not have sufficient resources to conduct rigorous research. Further, there may be community resistance to spending resourc-es on evaluation versus expanding programming, and resistance to randomization or other strong experimental and quasi-experimental designs.
A possible limitation from the U.S. perspective may be the fact that most of the systematic reviews are from non-U.S. entities and authors. Twelve reviews were led by U.S.-based authors. Nine reviews were from the U.K. Other countries included: Australia (3), Canada (2), Czech Republic (2), Spain (2), Ireland (1), Malaysia (1), South Africa (1), The Netherlands (1).
Implications for the Future
Intervention types at socio-environmental levels beyond the individual teen level received little rigorous study or systematic review atten-tion for their impacts on teens. These include global and cultural changes, national and/or community-level policy changes (e.g., family housing assistance, family income supplementation), community infrastructure improvements, whole school and whole school/whole community/whole child approaches (e.g., social and emotional learning as a coherent multi-level strategy, school climate), and expansion of access to nature (i.e., blue and green space).

24
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
In addition, newer cross-cutting approaches to teen flourishing interventions, and newer sources of teen stress, are missing from the scien-tific literature, due in part perhaps to the lag times between issue identification, innovation development or adaptation of existing promis-ing strategies, scientific evaluation of interventions, and availability of studies for systematic review. For example, Relational Developmen-tal Systems Theory is a relatively new way to conceptualize approaches to adolescent development.5,6 Yeager and colleagues noted a more pervasive failure of interventions aimed at teens, and recommended that strategy designers more carefully think through how strategies can appeal to teens and lead to a more robust evidence base.7
Contemporary sources of teen stress without reviews include systemic racism;8 aspects of social media;9 climate change;10 peers’ mental health;10,11 mass shootings;12 academic and economic pressure.13 These have been topics of discussion but have not been specifically ad-dressed with adapted or new interventions. On the positive side, recent examples of teen-generated civic engagement may be worth further study to understand whether they enhance flourishing.14
Recent methodological guidance may help future study leads and systematic reviewers provide a more rigorous evidence base. For ex-ample, Reavley and Sawyer’s recent publication for UNICEF focuses on remedies for a variety of flaws within adolescent-focused research, including how ages/developmental stages are grouped.15
Subsequent analyses could go beyond program labels and examine effectiveness using program components, theories of change, and the extent to which interventions that include teens are tailored to adolescence using the most recent science. Skeen and colleagues recently published an evidence review of teen-focused interventions by component, for use by the WHO and the United Nations for their upcom-ing initiative, Helping Adolescents Thrive.16 Yeager recently noted that social and emotional learning interventions for teens often fail because many were “simply aged-up versions of childhood programs—for instance, they communicate the same message, but now the character doing the talking has a skateboard and a chain wallet. Such programs often fail to capture adolescents’ attention, both in what they say and how they say it.”17
Conclusion
A variety of interventions, strategies, and policies, at different levels of social and environmental influence, can make positive changes to-ward enhancing teens’ psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing. If well implemented at a population level, and possibly combined to address multiple levels, strategies could help to get teens, their communities, schools, and families, on a path toward positive mental health and flourishing and away from a current path to increasing “languishing.” However, there is enough uncertainty in the data to warrant additional and more rigorous evaluation of any program or policy intervention. Future evaluations should carefully measure the impacts of universal programs and strategies on teens at varying risk of psychological distress, in preparation for potential future targeting.

25
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
Table 1. Summary of teen-level findings from the rapid evidence review, by strategy. Bolded entries indicate the findings are from methodologically more robust reviews
Socio-Environmental Level and Strategy
(Review OR Study)18
Outcomes with Positive Impact
(Strategy Subtype)
Outcomes with No Effect, Inconclusive, or Negative Effect
(Strategy Subtype)
National/community-level interventions
1 Housing assistance (Nguyen, 2016) Psychological distress (girls only) Psychological distress (Chicago par-ticipants: null findings; boys in other locations: detrimental effects)
Community-level interventions
2 Income supplementation (Costello, 2003)
Oppositional defiant disorder and con-duct disorder symptoms
Depression and anxiety symptoms
School-level interventions
3 Later school start times (Berger, 2018; Marx, 2017)
Depressive symptoms; sleep duration; other mental health (prosocial, emo-tional symptoms, peer relationships, total difficulties); composite mental health
Mental health (inconclusive due to study design flaws); conduct prob-lems; feeling accepted by other stu-dents; feeling accepted by adults
4 Whole school approach focused on mental health promotion (Enns, 2016)
Social and emotional competence19,20
Interpersonal-level interventions
5 Parenting interventions to prevent teen internalizing symptoms (Yap, 2018)
Depressive symptoms or diagnosis Internalizing symptoms
Multi-level interventions
6 “MindMatters” (multi-tier involv-ing school personnel and students) (O’Reilly, 2018)
Emotional and/or social competence
7 “Up” (school-based mental health promotion) (O’Reilly, 2018)
Emotional and/or social competence
8 Violence reduction and gender equali-ty-focused intervention with training for school counselors and parent involve-ment (Catalano, 2019)
Favorable attitudes toward domestic violence (declined)

26
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
Socio-Environmental Level and Strategy
(Review OR Study)18
Outcomes with Positive Impact
(Strategy Subtype)
Outcomes with No Effect, Inconclusive, or Negative Effect
(Strategy Subtype)
Individual teen-level interventions
Broad groupings of strategies
9 Universal resilience-focused interven-tions (various types) (Dray, 2017)
Internalizing symptoms (cognitive behavioral therapy-based)
Anxiety/anxiety and stress; depressive symptoms; externalizing problems/be-haviors; psychological distress
10 Universal school-based mental health promotion (O’Connor, 2018)
Anger/anger control (life-skills training); stigma (anti-stigma program); stress (stress management program); suicidal ideation (Suicide prevention and de-pression awareness program)
11 Universal ‘Tier 1” school-based mental health interventions in the context of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) (Arora, 2019)
Depressive symptoms Depressive symptoms
Specific programs or program components
12 Alcohol and drug education (Skeen, 2019)
Positive mental health promotion (face to face interventions only)
13 Anxiety reduction interventions (Feiss, 2019)
Anxiety/stress
14 BiteBack and BiteBack School (online positive mental health) (Banos, 2017)
Total symptom score Life satisfaction
15 Body image interventions (Soulakova, 2019)
Body image
16 Cognitive behavioral therapy-based (Soulakova, 2019)
Anxiety/stress
17 Community sports participation (Barry, 2018)
Community engagement21
18 Conflict resolution components of universal adolescent mental health preventive interventions (Skeen, 2019)
Anxiety and depression symptoms (face to face components only)
19 E-health4U (Banos, 2017) Mental health
20 Emotional regulation components of universal mental health prevention strategies (Skeen, 2019)
Anxiety and depression symptoms; positive mental health promotion

27
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
Socio-Environmental Level and Strategy
(Review OR Study)18
Outcomes with Positive Impact
(Strategy Subtype)
Outcomes with No Effect, Inconclusive, or Negative Effect
(Strategy Subtype)
21 Exercise22 (includes Tai Chi, which could also be considered medita-tion) (Mansfield, 2018; Pandey, 2018; Rodriguez-Ayllon, 2019)
Anxiety/stress (to 50-80% of heart rate; tai chi [versus gymnastics]); depressive symptoms; imbalance (emotional, psychological); psycho-logical distress (aerobics and hip-hop groups had lower psychological distress than body conditioning and ice-skating groups); feelings (aerobics only); positive wellbeing (volleyball: effects varied based on extent to which the sport met students’ psycho-logical needs; aerobics and hip-hop rated positive wellbeing higher than body conditioning and ice-skating groups); self-esteem (aerobic exercise: girls only; greater improvements for resistance training than for aerobics); process self-regulation (personal and social responsibility model exercise interventions)
Stress ( tai chi [cen-style]); body image; happiness (tai chi [versus gymnastics]); mental health/mental health status (CrossFit); psychological wellbeing (high-intensity interval train-ing ); self-esteem (active video game program)
22 Goal-setting components of universal adolescent mental health prevention interventions (Skeen, 2019)
Anxiety and depression symptoms (face to face only)
23 Interpersonal skills components of universal mental health preventive programs (Skeen, 2019)
Anxiety and depression symptoms; positive mental health promotion
24 Life skills education (Nasheeda, 2019) Emotional adjustment; empathy; self-esteem
Social adjustment
25 Life skills for mental health (Catalano, 2019)
Self-esteem
26 Mental health awareness (Salerno, 2016)
Stigma (1 out of 3 studies found im-provements in attitudes)
Stigma (2 out of 3 studies found no improvement in attitudes); help-seek-ing (grades 5-12 combined); mental health literacy (knowledge)
27 Mentoring23 (also see row 38 for posi-tive youth development interventions) (Barry, 2018; Raposa, 2019)
Emotional difficulties and behaviors; multiple outcomes (school engage-ment, social skills, perceived social support, relationship quality)24
28 Mindulness based interventions (Dun-ning, 2019; Skeen, 2019)
Anxiety/stress;25 depressive symp-toms;25 anxiety and depressive symptoms (face to face only); stress; mindfulness;25 resilience
Negative behavior;25 attention; 25 executive functions; 25 social behavior25
29 Mobile app self-report on mood, stress, daily activities, and coping strategies (Punukullo, 2019)
Depressive symptoms26

28
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
Socio-Environmental Level and Strategy
(Review OR Study)18
Outcomes with Positive Impact
(Strategy Subtype)
Outcomes with No Effect, Inconclusive, or Negative Effect
(Strategy Subtype)
30 Mobile phone-based multimedia mes-sages (cognitive behavioral therapy-based texts) (Punukullo, 2019)
Depressive symptoms
31 Nature interactions (Tillman, 2018) Stress;27 emotional wellbeing;27 mental health/mental health status; resilience28
Emotional wellbeing;27 mental health/mental health status; resil-ience;29 self-esteem30
32 Penn Resiliency Program - Finnish derivative (Bastounis, 2016)
Anxiety and depressive symptoms Depressive symptoms; explanatory style; anxiety (control group did better)
33 Preparation for adulthood strategies (Burrus, 2018)
Healthy relationships; parent-child communication; adolescent develop-ment
34 Problem-solving components of universal adolescent mental health prevention interventions (Skeen, 2019)
Anxiety and depression symptoms (digital and combined only)
35 Programs to develop young men’s wellbeing (Gwyther, 2019)
Depressive symptoms; negative affect; cognitive autonomy; emotional intelli-gence (multiple studies); help-seeking; interest in diversity of contact; mental health/mental health status; optimism; psychological wellbeing (gender sensitive programs); quality of life (enjoyment and satisfaction); reshaped perceptions about being a man; self-efficacy (male only programs and mixed gender programs); self-esteem; self-reflection
36 Self-regulation/Emotional regula-tion techniques (Pandey, 2018; Van Genugtsen, 2016)
Connectedness Student (success skills program); self-esteem
Externalizing problems/behaviors; internalizing symptoms
37 Skills to resist peer pressure as a com-ponent of universal adolescent mental health prevention programs (Skeen, 2019)
Positive mental health (aggregate)
38 Social and emotional skills develop-ment (multiple intervention types) (Barry, 2018; Taylor, 2017)
Communication and facilitation skills (through mentoring); life satisfaction/life is worthwhile (multi-component so-cial action interventions were the de-livery mechanism for social-emotional skills); coping skills; positive youth development outcomes;31 relationship skills
Negative affect (through mentoring ); motivation to change; positive outlook
39 Stress reduction interventions (Feiss, 2019)
Stress: targeted interventions found to be better than universal

29
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
Socio-Environmental Level and Strategy
(Review OR Study)18
Outcomes with Positive Impact
(Strategy Subtype)
Outcomes with No Effect, Inconclusive, or Negative Effect
(Strategy Subtype)
40 Suicide prevention (O’Connor, 2018) Suicide knowledge; suicidal ideation; suicide prevention; help-seeking be-havior and ability to identify support
Attitudes and behaviors
41 The Council for Boys and Young Men (UK)32 (Gwyther, 2019)
Self-efficacy (school and future) Identity distress; masculine ideology
42 Video interventions (Janouskova, 2017) Stigma; help-seeking Stigma; help-seeking
43 Yoga (Pandey, 2018) Tension-anxiety; total mood distur-bance; body image
Self-regulation (mindful yoga)
44 Youth-led community development program (Pennington, 2018)
Self-esteem
Outcomes in bold come from relatively rigorous reviews or studies.

30
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 3: Narrative Summary of Findings
Endnotes
1. In the late 1990s, MTO randomly supplied Federal housing assistance vouchers to volunteer families to new, higher-rent neighborhoods; some of the families had teenaged children, and the impact of the moves on teens’ selected mental health measures was included in the extensive data collec-tion effort of the initiative.
2. All outcomes come from systematic reviews. However, some outcomes are based on reviewers’ syntheses, sometimes for all populations included in the review, and sometimes for teens included in our focus population of 13-18-year-olds, or high-school-aged teens. Some other outcomes come from just one or a few studies included in the review and focused on high-school-aged teen group findings for psychological, social, and emotional wellbeing outcomes, and not other outcomes that may have been reported in the review. Additional details can be found in Appendix 6 (Evidence Tables).
3. See, for example, evidence tables for Kennedy, Mansfield, Marx, Nasheeda, Pandey, Raposa, Salerno, and Taylor (Appendix 5).
4. See Appendix 2.
5. Lerner RM, Brindis CD, Batanova M, et al. 2018. Adolescent health devel-opment: A relational developmental systems perspective. In N. Halfon et al. Handbook of Life Course Development. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47143-3_6.
6. O’Neil M., Volmert A, Pineau MG. 2019, July. Reframing Developmental Relationships: A Frameworks MessageMemo. Washington DC: Frameworks Institute.
7. Yeager DS, Dahl RE, Dweck CS. 2018. Why Interventions to Influence Ado-lescent Behavior Often Fail but Could Succeed. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 Jan; 13(1): 101–122.
8. Smedley, BD 2019. Multilevel interventions to undo the health consequenc-es of racism: The need for comprehensive approaches. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, Vol 25(1):123-125. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fcdp0000263.
9. Anderson M & Jiang J. Teens, Friendships, and Online Groups [Internet]. Pew Research Center; 2018 Nov 28 [cited 2019 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/11/28/teens-friendships-and-online-groups/
10. American Psychological Association. Stress in America: Generation Z [Internet]. American Psychological Association; 2018 Oct [cited 2019 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2018/infographics
11. Horowitz JM & Graf N. Most U.S. Teens See Anxiety and Depression as a Major Problem Among Their Peers [Internet]. Pew Research Center; 2019 Feb 20 [cited 2019 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/02/20/most-u-s-teens-see-anxiety-and-depression-as-a-major-problem-among-their-peers/
12. Graf, N. A Majority of U.S. Teens Fear a Shooting Could Happen at Their School, and Most Parents Share Their Concern [Internet]. Pew Research Center; 2018 Apr 18 [cited 2019 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.pe-wresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/18/a-majority-of-u-s-teens-fear-a-shoot-ing-could-happen-at-their-school-and-most-parents-share-their-concern/
13. Livingston G & Barroso A. For U.S. Teens Today, Summer Means More Schooling and Less Leisure Time Than in the Past [Internet]. Pew Research Center; 2019 Aug 13 [cited 2019 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/13/for-u-s-teens-today-summer-means-more-schooling-and-less-leisure-time-than-in-the-past/
14. Examples include Black Lives Matter, climate activism, March for Our Lives, and the organization Youth MOVE National.
15. Reavley NJ & Sawyer SM. Improving the Methodological Quality of Research in Adolescent Well-being [Internet]. UNICEF Office of Research –Innocenti; 2017 Mar [cited 2019 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/IRB_2017_03_Adol01.pdf
16. Skeen S, Laurenzi CA, Gordon SL, du Toit S, Tomlinson M, Dua T, et al. Adolescent Mental Health Program Components and Behavior Risk Reduction: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics [Internet]. 2019 Jul 1 [cited 2019 July 26]; (Epub ahead of print). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31262779Skeen S,
17. Yeager DS. Social and Emotional Learning Programs for Adolescents. The Future of Children [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 July 26]; 27(1):31-52. Available from: https://labs.la.utexas.edu/adrg/files/2013/12/5-Adolescence-Yeager-2.pdf
18. Full citations can be found in Appendix 5, Evidence Tables.
19. Positive outcomes compared to whole-school approach focused on pre-venting mental illness.
20. Ages 6-18 combined.
21. Characterized as social and emotional by Barry, 2018.
22. Note that different forms of exercise have different effects, according to reviews.
23. Mentoring programs varied. For example, the program with positive effect on emotional difficulties and behaviors was residential plus 9 months of mentoring, categorized as social and emotional skills development.
24. Note that mentoring with these outcomes was intergenerational and one-on-one.
25. Most study participants were older than 12, but the ages ranged from 4.7 to 17.4.
26. Reviewers attributed improvement in symptoms to participation in the research study rather than increased emotional self-awareness as a result of the mobile app.
27. Findings not available by age. Children and adolescent (18 and younger) interventions and outcomes combined.
28. 3 out of 5 interventions showed positive effects. Children and teens com-bined.
29. 2 out of 5 interventions showed positive effects. Children and teens com-bined.
30. 10 of 13 findings were not statistically significant.
31. Combined effect size reported. Outcomes not specific to adolescents, but demographics, including child age group, were not associated with the combined effect size.
32. The Council intervention aimed to encourage solidarity amongst young men, question maladaptive stereotypes, and recognize strengths and collec-tive responsibilities.

31
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
Moving Policy Upstream to Advance Adolescent Flourishing
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
D. Dougherty, N. LeBlanc, P. Armstrong, E. Cope, and the AcademyHealth & ACT for Health Team
With support from Well Being Trust
September 30, 2019

32
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
Summary of Findings by Outcome
| 2
Su
mm
ary
of F
indi
ngs
by O
utco
me
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
Natio
nal/
Com
mun
ity-L
evel
Inte
rven
tions
Natio
nal/C
omm
unity
-Lev
el O
utco
mes
Heal
th p
rom
otin
g en
viro
nmen
ts (i
n ne
w, h
ighe
r-re
nt, c
omm
unity
com
pare
d to
old
com
mun
ity)1
Mov
ing
to O
ppor
tuni
ty (M
TO)2
Anto
naka
s, 20
193
Fa
mili
es
Hi
gher
food
pric
es
Mov
ing
to O
ppor
tuni
ty2
Less
inte
nse
deve
lopm
ent
Mov
ing
to O
ppor
tuni
ty2
Mor
e op
en sp
ace
Neig
hbor
hood
cond
ition
s M
ovin
g to
Opp
ortu
nity
2 Ng
uyen
, 201
72 Fa
mili
es
Low
-Pov
erty
and
Sec
tion
8 gr
oups
exp
erie
nced
su
bsta
ntia
l im
prov
emen
ts in
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d co
nditi
ons
acro
ss d
iver
se m
easu
res,
inclu
ding
:
econ
omic
cond
ition
s,
so
cial s
yste
ms (
e.g.
, col
lect
ive
effic
acy)
,
phys
ical f
eatu
res o
f the
env
ironm
ent (
e.g.
, tr
ee co
ver)
and
heal
th o
utco
mes
. Si
gnifi
cant
ly fe
wer
you
ths i
n th
e lo
w- p
over
ty g
roup
re
port
ed th
e ex
isten
ce o
f gan
gs (B
= -0
.13
SD) i
n th
eir
neig
hbor
hood
or s
choo
l, or
hea
ring
guns
hots
(B=
-0.1
Th
e lo
w- p
over
ty v
ouch
er g
roup
mor
eove
r ach
ieve
d be
tter
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d at
tain
men
t com
pare
d to
Sec
tion
8.
Trea
tmen
t effe
cts w
ere
larg
est f
or N
ew Y
ork
and
Los
Ange
les.
Neig
hbor
hood
pov
erty
leve
l M
ovin
g to
Opp
ortu
nity
2 Os
ypuk
, 201
92 Fa
mili
es w
ho m
oved
fro
m p
ublic
hou
sing
with
a v
ouch
er
Rand
omiza
tion
to v
ouch
er g
roup
vs.
cont
rol
simul
tane
ously
dec
reas
ed n
eigh
borh
ood
perc
ent o
f po
vert
y

33
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 3
W
ellb
eing
Out
com
e, b
y So
cio-e
nviro
nmen
tal
Deve
lopm
ent I
nter
vent
ion
Leve
l and
Out
com
e M
easu
rem
ent L
evel
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
Hous
ing
disc
rimin
atio
n
Mov
ing
to O
ppor
tuni
ty2
Osyp
uk, 2
0192
Fam
ilies
who
mov
ed
from
pub
lic h
ousin
g w
ith a
vou
cher
MTO
par
ticip
ants
exp
erie
nced
hou
sing
disc
rimin
atio
n in
thei
r new
nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds.
Effe
cts o
f hou
sing
disc
rimin
atio
n on
men
tal h
ealth
w
ere
harm
ful,
but i
mpr
ecise
Socia
l rel
atio
ns
8 ty
pes o
f com
mun
ity
infra
stru
ctur
e in
terv
entio
ns (e
.g.,
com
mun
ity h
ubs;
chan
ges t
o ne
ighb
orho
od d
esig
n; g
reen
and
bl
ue sp
ace)
Bagn
all,
2018
Al
l age
gro
ups;
10
stud
ies i
nclu
ded
child
ren
and/
or
adol
esce
nts
Mod
erat
e ev
iden
ce o
f pos
itive
effe
cts o
n co
mm
unity
w
ellb
eing
out
com
es.
By in
terv
entio
n ty
pes:
For c
omm
unity
hub
s int
erve
ntio
ns:
-Soc
ial c
ohes
ion;
-S
ocia
l cap
ital;
-Tru
st b
etw
een
peop
le;
-Wid
er so
cial n
etw
orks
Fo
r cha
nges
to n
eigh
borh
ood
desig
n:
-Sen
se o
f bel
ongi
ng;
-Sen
se o
f prid
e Fo
r gre
en a
nd b
lue
spac
e:
- Soc
ial i
nter
actio
ns;
- Soc
ial n
etw
orks
Bo
ndin
g an
d br
idgi
ng so
cial c
apita
l
Teen
-Lev
el O
utco
mes
Psyc
holo
gica
l dist
ress
M
ovin
g to
Opp
ortu
nity
Ng
uyen
, 201
62 Ad
oles
cent
s age
d 12
to
19
year
s in
fam
ilies
offe
red
hous
ing
vouc
hers
ve
rsus
thos
e re
mai
ning
in p
ublic
ho
usin
g
Chica
go p
artic
ipan
ts e
xper
ienc
ed n
ull t
reat
men
t effe
cts.
Ou
tsid
e Ch
icago
, boy
s exp
erie
nced
det
rimen
tal e
ffect
s, w
here
as g
irls e
xper
ienc
ed b
enef
icia
l effe
cts.
Psyc
hiat
ric sy
mpt
om le
vels
(for a
nxie
ty,
depr
essio
n, o
ppos
ition
al d
efia
nt d
isord
er, c
ondu
ct
diso
rder
)
Grea
t Sm
oky
Mou
ntai
ns S
tudy
Q
uasi-
Expe
rimen
t4 Co
stel
lo, 2
003
Teen
s 13-
17 a
t tim
e of
inte
rven
tion.
Af
ter t
he ca
sino
open
ing,
leve
ls of
sym
ptom
s for
op
posit
iona
l def
iant
diso
rder
and
cond
uct d
isord
er
amon
g th
e ex
-poo
r fel
l to
thos
e of
the
neve
r-poo
r

34
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 4
W
ellb
eing
Out
com
e, b
y So
cio-e
nviro
nmen
tal
Deve
lopm
ent I
nter
vent
ion
Leve
l and
Out
com
e M
easu
rem
ent L
evel
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
child
ren,
whi
le le
vels
amon
g th
ose
who
wer
e pe
rsist
ently
poo
r rem
aine
d hi
gh (o
dds r
atio
, 1.5
0; 9
5%
conf
iden
ce in
terv
al, 1
.08-
2.09
; and
odd
s rat
io, 0
.91;
95
% co
nfid
ence
inte
rval
, 0.7
7-1.
07, r
espe
ctiv
ely)
. An
xiety
and
dep
ress
ion
sym
ptom
s wer
e un
affe
cted
.
Scho
ol-L
evel
Inte
rven
tions
Scho
ol-L
evel
Out
com
es
Clas
sroo
m cl
imat
e
Min
dful
ness
-bas
ed in
terv
entio
ns
for t
each
ers
Klin
gbei
l, 20
18
Te
ache
rs in
gra
des
K-12
; Fi
ndin
gs n
ot
repo
rted
sepa
rate
ly
for s
econ
dary
sc
hool
s
Not s
igni
fican
t
Psyc
holo
gica
l dist
ress
St
atist
ically
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
s.
Psyc
holo
gica
l wel
lbei
ng o
f tea
cher
s Sm
all t
o m
ediu
m e
ffect
(g=.
431,
95%
CI
.254
, .60
8)
Teac
hing
pra
ctice
s No
t sig
nific
ant
Teen
-Lev
el O
utco
mes
Depr
essiv
e sy
mpt
oms
Late
r sch
ool s
tart
tim
es (2
in
terv
entio
n st
udie
s)
Berg
er, 2
0185
High
scho
ols
Inhe
rent
des
ign
draw
back
s in
the
stud
ies p
reve
nt
auth
ors f
rom
conc
ludi
ng th
at d
elay
ing
a hi
gh sc
hool
’s st
art t
ime
will
caus
e st
uden
ts’ m
enta
l hea
lth to
im
prov
e.
Repo
rted
resu
lts fo
r pre
-pos
t stu
dies
: Lon
ger s
leep
du
ratio
ns (3
0 m
inut
es a
nd 2
5 m
inut
es) a
nd si
gnifi
cant
ly
low
er le
vels
of d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms;
depr
essiv
e sy
mpt
oms w
ere
inve
rsel
y co
rrel
ated
with
slee
p du
ratio
n.
Univ
ersa
l sch
ool-b
ased
men
tal
heal
th p
rom
otio
n (m
indf
ulne
ss)
prog
ram
; 1 st
udy)
O’Co
nnor
, 201
8 12
-16-
year
old
s M
oder
ate
redu
ctio
n in
low
-gra
de d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms
at 3
-mon
th fo
llow
-up

35
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 5
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
Late
r sch
ool s
tart
tim
es (1
stud
y)
Mar
x, 2
0176
13-1
9-ye
ar-o
lds
over
all;
Grad
es 9
-12
for t
his s
tudy
Stud
ents
in th
e tw
o la
ter s
tart
tim
es (7
:25
and
8:30
a.
m.)
repo
rted
less
dep
ress
ion
than
stud
ents
in th
e ea
rlies
t sta
rt ti
me
(7:1
5).
No si
gnifi
cant
diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
8:30
a.m
. and
7:2
5 st
art t
imes
.
Othe
r men
tal h
ealth
La
ter s
choo
l sta
rt ti
me
(1 st
udy)
Be
rger
, 201
85
High
scho
ols
Inhe
rent
des
ign
draw
back
s in
the
stud
ies p
reve
nt
auth
ors f
rom
conc
ludi
ng th
at d
elay
ing
a hi
gh sc
hool
’s st
art t
ime
will
caus
e st
uden
ts’ m
enta
l hea
lth to
im
prov
e.
Repo
rted
resu
lts fo
r int
erve
ntio
n ve
rsus
com
paris
on
scho
ols:
Pr
osoc
ial
Pr
osoc
ial b
ehav
ior,
emot
iona
l sym
ptom
s, pe
erre
latio
nshi
p pr
oble
ms,
tota
l diff
iculti
es:
All
impr
oved
Cond
uct p
robl
ems:
no im
prov
emen
t.
Com
posit
e m
enta
l hea
lth (G
HQ-1
2): i
mpr
oved
Tim
e in
bed
on
both
scho
ol n
ight
s and
non
-sch
ool
nigh
ts: i
ncre
ased
.
Slee
p du
ratio
n (s
choo
l nig
ht)
Late
r sch
ool s
tart
tim
es: f
rom
9
a.m
. to
10 a
.m. (
1 st
udy)
13-1
9-ye
ar-o
lds
over
all;
Grad
es 9
-12
for t
his s
tudy
Over
all,
revi
ew su
gges
ts la
ter s
choo
l sta
rt ti
mes
hav
e po
tent
ial b
enef
its b
ut p
oint
to th
e ne
ed fo
r hig
her
qual
ity p
rimar
y st
udie
s. Sl
eep
dura
tion:
stat
istica
lly si
gnifi
cant
mea
n di
ffere
nce
of 0
.49
hour
s (CI
0.2
4, 0
.74)
Socia
l out
com
es
Late
r sch
ool s
tart
tim
es (1
stud
y)
13-1
9-ye
ar-o
lds
over
all;
Grad
es 9
-12
for t
his s
tudy
Feel
ing
acce
pted
by
othe
r stu
dent
s: no
effe
ct
Feel
ing
acce
pted
by
adul
ts: n
o ef
fect
Socia
l/soc
ial a
nd e
mot
iona
l com
pete
nce
Who
le S
choo
l App
roac
h Fo
cuse
d on
Men
tal H
ealth
Pro
mot
ion
Enns
, 201
6 6-
18A
who
le sc
hool
app
roac
h fo
cusin
g on
men
tal h
ealth
pr
omot
ion
is ef
fect
ive
in p
rom
otin
g ch
ild a
nd y
outh
m
enta
l hea
lth

36
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 6
W
ellb
eing
Out
com
e, b
y So
cio-e
nviro
nmen
tal
Deve
lopm
ent I
nter
vent
ion
Leve
l and
Out
com
e M
easu
rem
ent L
evel
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
Inte
rper
sona
l-Lev
el In
terv
entio
ns (I
nter
vent
ions
with
Fam
ily, P
eers
, Cow
orke
rs)
Inte
rper
sona
l-Lev
el O
utco
mes
None
ava
ilabl
e.
Teen
-Lev
el O
utco
mes
Depr
essiv
e sy
mpt
oms o
r dia
gnos
is Pa
rent
ing
inte
rven
tions
to p
reve
nt
child
inte
rnal
izing
pro
blem
s Ya
p, 2
0167
Birt
h to
age
18
(3 st
udie
s foc
used
on
ado
lesc
ents
>12
-18
)
Two
stud
ies f
ocus
ed o
n re
ducin
g te
en d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms f
ound
a sm
all b
ut si
gnifi
cant
effe
ct
(com
bine
d ef
fect
size
-0.1
19, C
I -0.
217,
-0,0
20, p
=
0.01
9).
Inte
rnal
izing
sym
ptom
s Pa
rent
ing
inte
rven
tions
to p
reve
nt
child
inte
rnal
izing
pro
blem
s Ya
p, 2
0167
Birt
h to
age
18
(3 st
udie
s foc
used
on
ado
lesc
ents
>12
-18
)
No e
ffect
.
Mul
ti-Le
vel I
nter
vent
ions
Teen
-Lev
el O
utco
mes
Emot
iona
l and
/or s
ocia
l com
pete
nce
“U
p” (s
choo
l-bas
ed m
ulti-
leve
l8 m
enta
l hea
lth p
rom
otio
n) (1
st
udy)
O’Re
illy,
201
8 11
-15
year
s old
(G
rade
s 5-9
) in
Denm
ark
Stat
istica
lly si
gnifi
cant
incr
ease
in %
of c
hild
ren
repo
rtin
g hi
gh so
cial a
nd e
mot
iona
l com
pete
nce
pre-
post
Min
dMat
ters
(mul
ti-tie
r[sch
ool
pers
onne
l and
child
ren)
pro
gram
en
cour
agin
g re
spec
t, to
lera
nce,
re
silie
nce,
com
mun
icatio
n,
prob
lem
-sol
ving
) (1
stud
y)
O’Re
illy,
201
8
10-1
5 ye
ars o
ld
Min
imal
impr
ovem
ent
Favo
rabl
e at
titud
es to
war
d do
mes
tic v
iole
nce
Mul
ti-co
mpo
nent
aim
ed a
t Ca
tala
no, 2
019
High
scho
ol
Redu
ced

37
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 7
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
viol
ence
redu
ctio
n an
d ge
nder
eq
ualit
y, in
cludi
ng tr
aini
ng fo
r sc
hool
coun
selo
rs a
nd p
aren
t-in
volv
emen
t fac
ilita
tion
(1 st
udy)
Stud
ents
in Ir
an
Indi
vidu
al T
een-
Leve
l Int
erve
ntio
ns
Com
mun
ity-L
evel
Out
com
es
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l out
com
es fo
r adu
lts, p
eers
, or
gani
zatio
ns, a
nd/o
r ins
titut
ions
9 Yo
uth
inqu
iry (e
.g.,
Yout
h Pa
rtici
pato
ry A
ctio
n Re
sear
ch)
Kenn
edy,
201
9 Yo
uth,
age
un
spec
ified
57
.1%
of i
nclu
ded
stud
ies s
how
ed p
ositi
ve ch
ange
s, in
cludi
ng:
M
icros
yste
m le
vel:
prac
titio
ner g
row
th; p
eer
grou
p no
rms
M
eso-
syst
em le
vel:
prog
ram
dev
elop
men
t or
impr
ovem
ent;
rese
arch
ben
efits
Exos
yste
m le
vel:
scho
ol, c
ity, s
tate
leve
l pol
icyad
optio
n
Stud
ies m
ore
likel
y to
repo
rt im
prov
emen
ts:
us
ed a
dvoc
acy
stra
tegi
es;
ta
rget
ed d
ecisi
on-m
aker
s;
conv
ened
for a
long
er d
urat
ion.
Indi
vidu
al T
een-
Leve
l Out
com
es: R
educ
tion
in P
sych
olog
ical D
istre
ss
Ange
r/an
ger c
ontr
ol/a
ggre
ssio
n Un
iver
sal s
choo
l-bas
ed m
enta
l he
alth
pro
mot
ion
(life
skill
s tr
aini
ng)
O’Co
nnor
, 201
8 14
-16
year
s old
Redu
ced
ange
r, im
prov
ed a
nger
cont
rol
Digi
tal a
lcoho
l and
dru
g ab
use
com
pone
nts o
f uni
vers
al
prev
entiv
e m
enta
l hea
lth p
rogr
ams
Skee
n, 2
018
10-1
9Ag
gres
sion
redu
ced
Anxio
us a
nd/o
r Dep
ress
ive
Sym
ptom
atol
ogy
Face
to fa
ce m
indf
ulne
ss,10
in
terp
erso
nal s
kills
, em
otio
nal
regu
latio
n, co
nflic
t res
olut
ion,
and
Skee
n, 2
018
10-1
9Re
duce
d an
xious
and
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
atol
ogy

38
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 8
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
digi
tal a
nd co
mbi
ned
prob
lem
-so
lvin
g pr
ogra
m co
mpo
nent
s of
univ
ersa
l pre
vent
ive
men
tal h
ealth
pr
ogra
ms
Finn
ish d
eriv
ativ
e of
the
Penn
Re
silie
ncy
Prog
ram
(cog
nitiv
e-be
havi
oral
dep
ress
ion
prev
entio
n pr
ogra
m) (
2 st
udie
s)11
Bast
ouni
s, 20
1612
Ov
eral
l inc
lude
d st
udie
s: 8
-17.
M
ean
ages
in 2
st
udie
s: 1
3 an
d 14
ye
ars o
f age
No e
ffect
s on
depr
essiv
e sy
mpt
oms f
or te
ens.
Cont
rol c
ondi
tions
had
bet
ter a
nxie
ty o
utco
mes
acr
oss
all s
tudi
es/a
ll ag
e gr
oups
.
Anxie
ty/s
tres
s M
indf
ulne
ss-b
ased
inte
rven
tions
Du
nnin
g, 2
019
Mea
n ag
es fr
om 4
.7
to 1
7.4;
mos
t wer
e ol
der t
han
12.
For R
CTs w
ith a
ctiv
e co
ntro
l con
ditio
ns: m
ean
effe
ct
size
0.18
.
(Yo)
Pie
nso,
Sie
nto,
Act
uo13
Ca
tala
no, 2
019
13-1
5-ye
ar-o
lds i
n Lo
w- a
nd M
iddl
e-In
com
e Co
untr
ies
(LM
IC)
Effe
ct o
n an
xiety
was
stat
istica
lly si
gnifi
cant
but
not
co
nsid
ered
clin
ically
mea
ning
ful.
Anxie
ty re
duct
ion
inte
rven
tions
Fe
iss, 2
019
11-1
8-ye
ar-o
lds
A hi
gher
dos
e w
as a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith a
gre
ater
redu
ctio
n.
FRIE
NDS
prog
ram
(Cog
nitiv
e Be
havi
oral
The
rapy
[CBT
]-bas
ed)
Soul
akov
a, 2
019
(3)
8-15
-yea
r old
sNo
effe
ct w
hen
low
qua
lity
stud
ies w
ere
rem
oved
from
th
e an
alys
is
Exer
cise
to 5
0-80
% o
f max
imum
he
art r
ate
Rodr
igue
z-Ay
llon,
20
19
13-1
6-ye
ar-o
lds
Posit
ive
effe
ct.
Tai C
hi (v
ersu
s gym
nast
ics [1
st
udy]
) Ro
drig
uez-
Ayllo
n,
2019
13
-16-
year
-old
sSi
gnifi
cant
redu
ctio
n
Anxie
ty/a
nxie
ty a
nd st
ress
Un
iver
sal r
esili
ence
-focu
sed
inte
rven
tions
Dr
ay, 2
017
11-1
8-ye
ar-o
lds
No e
ffect

39
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 9
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
Depr
essio
n/De
pres
sive
sym
ptom
s14
Varie
d “T
ier 1
” (un
iver
sal)
scho
ol-
base
d m
enta
l hea
lth i
nter
vent
ions
(3
stud
ies)
in co
ntex
t of m
ulti-
tiere
d sy
stem
s of s
uppo
rt [M
TSS]
) (3
stud
ies)
Aror
a, 2
019
14-2
0 ye
ars o
f age
2 st
udie
s had
pos
itive
effe
cts;
1 ha
d ne
gativ
e ef
fect
s
Sele
cted
mal
e-on
ly g
ende
r-ne
utra
l sc
hool
and
com
mun
ity-b
ased
pr
ogra
ms t
o de
velo
p yo
ung
men
’s w
ellb
eing
(8
stud
ies)
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
yea
rs o
f age
Po
sitiv
e ef
fect
Min
dful
ness
-bas
ed in
terv
entio
ns
(33
stud
ies)
Du
nnin
g, 2
019
Mea
n ag
es fr
om 4
.7
to 1
7.4;
mos
t wer
e ol
der t
han
12.
For R
CTs w
ith a
ctiv
e co
ntro
l con
ditio
ns: M
ean
effe
ct
size
0.47
.
Mob
ile a
pp se
lf-re
port
on
moo
d,
stre
ss, d
aily
act
iviti
es, a
nd co
ping
st
rate
gies
. (1
stud
y)
Punu
kullo
, 201
9 Ov
eral
l 10-
19-y
ear-
olds
. St
udy:
14-
24 y
ears
ol
d
Incr
ease
d em
otio
nal s
elf-a
war
enes
s (ES
A) w
as
pred
ictiv
e of
a d
ecre
ase
in d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms;
how
ever
, the
inte
rven
tion
was
not
caus
ally
resp
onsib
le
itsel
f for
the
decr
ease
in d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms.
Inte
rven
tion
grou
p sh
owed
sign
ifica
nt in
crea
ses i
n ES
A w
ith m
ediu
m to
larg
e sig
nific
ant m
ain
effe
cts f
or ti
me,
fo
r dep
ress
ion,
anx
iety
, and
stre
ss. A
naly
sis su
gges
ted
that
par
ticip
atio
n in
RCT
itse
lf en
hanc
ed m
enta
l he
alth
care
and
impr
oved
MH
outc
omes
.
Mob
ile p
hone
-bas
ed m
ultim
edia
m
essa
ges (
CBT-
base
d te
xts,
vide
o m
essa
ges,
cart
oons
) (1
stud
y)
Punu
kullo
, 201
9 Ov
eral
l, 10
-19-
year
-ol
ds.
No si
gnifi
cant
effe
ct o
f CBT
-bas
ed p
rogr
am o
ver c
ontr
ol.
Both
pro
gram
s dem
onst
rate
d sm
all i
mpr
ovem
ents
in
depr
essio
n sc
ore
imm
edia
tely
afte
r the
inte
rven
tion
follo
wed
by
a w
orse
ning
of s
core
s at 1
2-m
onth
follo
w-
up.

40
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 1
0
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
13-1
7-ye
ar-o
lds
Aero
bic e
xerc
ise;
Resis
tanc
e ex
ercis
e; v
ersu
s co
mbi
ned
aero
bic a
nd re
sista
nce
(1 st
udy)
Rodr
igue
z-Ay
llon,
20
19
14-1
8-ye
ar-o
lds
Posit
ive
effe
ct fo
r res
istan
ce g
roup
Exer
cise
to 5
0-80
% o
f max
imum
he
art r
ate
(2 st
udie
s)
Rodr
igue
z-Ay
llon,
20
19
13-1
6-ye
ar-o
lds
Posit
ive
effe
ct
Depr
essiv
e sy
mpt
oms
Univ
ersa
l res
ilien
ce-fo
cuse
d in
terv
entio
ns
Dray
, 201
7 11
-18
No e
ffect
Emot
iona
l diff
iculti
es a
nd b
ehav
iors
M
ento
ring
(resid
entia
l plu
s 9
mon
ths o
f men
torin
g) (c
ateg
orize
d as
socia
l and
em
otio
nal s
kills
de
velo
pmen
t) (1
stud
y15)
Barr
y, 2
018
Youn
g pe
ople
di
spla
ying
ant
isocia
l be
havi
or; n
on-
spec
ified
age
rang
e
Redu
ced
Exte
rnal
izing
pro
blem
s/be
havi
ors
Self-
regu
latio
n te
chni
ques
Va
n Ge
nugt
sen,
20
16
Adol
esce
nts o
nly
No e
ffect
Univ
ersa
l res
ilien
ce-fo
cuse
d in
terv
entio
ns
Dray
, 201
7 11
-18
No e
ffect
Iden
tity
dist
ress
Th
e Co
uncil
Gw
ythe
r, 20
19
Mea
n ag
es 1
5 an
d 15
.5 y
ears
No
effe
cts (
posit
ive
or n
egat
ive)
Imba
lanc
e (e
mot
iona
l, ps
ycho
logi
cal)
Exer
cise
to 5
0-80
% o
f max
imum
he
art r
ate
(2 st
udie
s)
Rodr
igue
z-Ay
llon,
20
19
13-1
6-ye
ar-o
lds
Posit
ive
effe
ct
Inte
rnal
izing
sym
ptom
s (in
clude
s dep
ress
ive
and
Univ
ersa
l Res
ilien
ce F
ocus
ed
Inte
rven
tions
(inc
lude
s cog
nitiv
e-Dr
ay, 2
017
11-1
8 ye
ars o
f age
Si
gnifi
cant
ove
rall
inte
rven
tion
effe
ct

41
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 1
1
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
anxie
ty sy
mpt
oms)
be
havi
oral
-ther
apy-
base
d)
Self-
regu
latio
n te
chni
ques
Va
n Ge
nugt
sen,
20
16
Adol
esce
nts o
nly
Smal
l to
med
ium
effe
ct o
n in
tern
alizi
ng b
ehav
ior
Mas
culin
e id
eolo
gy
The
Coun
cil
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
yea
rs
No e
ffect
s (po
sitiv
e or
neg
ativ
e)
Nega
tive
affe
ct
Sele
cted
mix
ed g
ende
r, ge
nder
-ne
utra
l sch
ool-
and
com
mun
ity-
base
d pr
ogra
ms t
o de
velo
p yo
ung
men
’s w
ellb
eing
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
Po
sitiv
e ch
ange
s, m
ostly
in m
ales
Socia
l and
em
otio
nal s
kills
de
velo
pmen
t: M
ento
ring
(resid
entia
l plu
s 9 m
onth
s of
men
torin
g) (1
stud
y15)
Barr
y, 2
018
Youn
g pe
ople
di
spla
ying
ant
isocia
l be
havi
or; n
on-
spec
ified
age
rang
e
Redu
ced
nega
tive
emot
ions
Nega
tive
beha
vior
M
indf
ulne
ss-b
ased
inte
rven
tions
Du
nnin
g, 2
019
Mea
n ag
es fr
om 4
.7
to 1
7.4;
mos
t wer
e ol
der t
han
12.
For R
CTs w
ith a
ctiv
e co
ntro
l con
ditio
ns:
Not a
stat
istica
lly si
gnifi
cant
effe
ct.
Psyc
holo
gica
l dist
ress
Un
iver
sal r
esili
ence
-focu
sed
inte
rven
tions
Dr
ay, 2
017
11-1
8No
effe
ct
Aero
bics
, hip
-hop
, bod
y co
nditi
onin
g, ic
e sk
atin
g (1
stud
y)
Man
sfie
ld, 2
018
17-2
2Ae
robi
cs a
nd h
ip-h
op g
roup
s had
low
er p
sych
olog
ical
dist
ress
than
bod
y co
nditi
onin
g an
d ice
-ska
ting
grou
ps
Stig
ma
Univ
ersa
l sch
ool-b
ased
men
tal
heal
th p
rom
otio
n (m
enta
l hea
lth
anti-
stig
ma
prog
ram
; 1 st
udy)
O’Co
nnor
, 201
8 13
-15
year
s old
Posit
ive
chan
ges i
n st
uden
ts’ b
elie
fs a
nd a
ttitu
des
tow
ard
peop
le w
ith m
enta
l illn
ess
Mas
s Med
ia D
igita
l pla
tform
s (1
revi
ew, w
ith 2
2 RC
Ts)
Das,
2017
16
11-1
9, 1
5-24
-yea
r-ol
d Di
scrim
inat
ion
agai
nst m
enta
lly il
l: SM
D: -
.85
to -.
17

42
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 1
2
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
Urba
n lo
w-in
com
e yo
uth
Prej
udice
aga
inst
men
tally
ill:
SMD:
-2.
94 to
2.4
0
Vide
o in
terv
entio
ns (v
ario
us ty
pes)
Ja
nous
kova
, 201
7 Yo
ung
peop
le; 4
of
23 st
udie
s wer
e co
nduc
ted
with
se
cond
ary
scho
ol
stud
ents
Find
ings
wer
e m
ixed
, dep
endi
ng o
n ty
pe o
f in
terv
entio
n, o
utco
me
mea
sure
s, an
d le
ngth
of f
ollo
w-
up p
erio
d. 2
stud
ies h
ad n
o sig
nific
ant i
mpa
ct; 1
stud
y ha
d po
sitiv
e fin
ding
s; an
d 1
had
both
pos
itive
and
ne
gativ
e fin
ding
s.
Men
tal h
ealth
aw
aren
ess (
2 RC
Ts
and
1 So
lom
on 4
gro
ups d
esig
n w
ith o
nly
hig
h sc
hool
pop
ulat
ions
)
Sale
rno,
201
6 Ov
eral
l, gr
ades
5
thro
ugh
12.
Som
e st
udie
s with
hi
gh sc
hool
po
pula
tion
1 ou
t of 3
stud
ies f
ound
impr
ovem
ents
in a
ttitu
des
Stre
ss (p
erce
ived
) St
ress
redu
ctio
n in
terv
entio
ns
Feiss
, 201
9 11
-18
year
s of a
geTa
rget
ed in
terv
entio
ns w
ere
bett
er th
an u
nive
rsal
Tai C
hi (C
en-s
tyle
) (1
stud
y)
Rodr
igue
z-Ay
llon,
20
19
11-1
6 ye
ars o
f age
No e
ffect
Min
dful
ness
-Bas
ed In
terv
entio
ns
(1)
Soul
akov
a, 2
019
(3)
8-15
yea
rs o
ldSi
gnifi
cant
effe
ct, b
ut sm
alle
r tha
n fo
r som
e ot
her
mea
sure
s
Univ
ersa
l sch
ool-b
ased
men
tal
heal
th p
rom
otio
n (s
tres
s m
anag
emen
t pro
gram
; 2
min
dful
ness
pro
gram
s; 1
stud
y ea
ch)
O’Co
nnor
, 201
8 12
-14
year
s old
(s
tres
s m
anag
emen
t)
12-1
6 ye
ars o
ld
(min
dful
ness
)
15-1
8-ye
ar o
lds
(min
dful
ness
)
Stre
ss m
anag
emen
t pro
gram
: Red
uced
stre
ss
Min
dful
ness
(12-
15-y
ear-o
lds a
nd 1
5-18
-yea
r old
s):
Redu
ced
stre
ss
Inte
ract
ions
with
nat
ure
Tillm
an, 2
018
Child
ren
and
teen
ager
s, 18
or
Find
ings
not
ava
ilabl
e by
age
.

43
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 1
3
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
youn
ger,
mos
tly
early
ado
lesc
ents
(n
ot d
efin
ed)
Over
all,
with
rem
oval
of l
ow-q
ualit
y pa
pers
, 4 o
f 5
findi
ngs w
ere
signi
fican
tly p
ositi
ve.
Suici
de-re
late
d Un
iver
sal s
choo
l-bas
ed m
enta
l he
alth
pro
mot
ion
(sui
cide
prev
entio
n an
d de
pres
sion
awar
enes
s; 1
stud
y)
O’Co
nnor
, 201
8 14
-18-
year
old
sRe
duce
d su
icida
l ide
atio
n Im
prov
ed a
bilit
y to
iden
tify
supp
ort
Incr
ease
in h
elp-
seek
ing
beha
vior
s
Scho
ol-b
ased
suici
de p
reve
ntio
n pr
ogra
ms
Das,
2017
16
11-1
9, a
nd 1
5-24
,ye
ars o
f age
In
crea
sed
shor
t-ter
m k
now
ledg
e of
suici
de
Incr
ease
d kn
owle
dge
of su
icide
pre
vent
ion
No e
ffect
on
suici
de-re
late
d at
titud
es o
r beh
avio
rs
Tens
ion-
anxie
ty sc
ale
Krip
alu
yoga
(1 st
udy)
Pa
ndey
, 201
8 Gr
ades
11
and
12
Decr
ease
d re
lativ
e to
cont
rol
Tota
l moo
d di
stur
banc
e Kr
ipal
u yo
ga (1
stud
y)
Pand
ey, 2
018
Grad
es 1
1 an
d 12
De
crea
sed
rela
tive
to co
ntro
l
Tota
l sym
ptom
scor
es17
Bi
teBa
ck a
nd B
iteBa
ck S
choo
l Ba
nos,
2017
12
-18
year
s of a
geSi
gnifi
cant
dec
reas
e
Indi
vidu
al T
een-
Leve
l Out
com
es: P
ositi
vely
-Fra
med
Out
com
es
Posit
ive
men
tal h
ealth
out
com
e (a
ggre
gate
) Di
gita
l pla
tform
inte
rven
tions
(8
revi
ews)
Da
s, 20
1716
NA
Pe
rson
plu
s env
ironm
ent:
SMD:
.27,
95%
CI:
.16
to .3
7 (s
tatis
tical
ly si
gnifi
cant
) En
viro
nmen
t onl
y: S
MD:
.38,
95%
CI .
15 to
.60
(sta
tistic
ally
sign
ifica
nt)
Mul
tiple
out
com
es: S
choo
l: sc
hool
eng
agem
ent
(e.g
., sc
hool
conn
ecte
dnes
s, at
tend
ance
, sch
ool
likin
g); S
ocia
l: so
cial s
kills
(e.g
., co
oper
atio
n,
empa
thy,
turn
-taki
ng),
perc
eive
d so
cial s
uppo
rt,
rela
tions
hip
qual
ity (e
.g.,
perc
eptio
ns o
f re
latio
nshi
p qu
ality
with
teac
hers
, par
ents
, pee
rs)
Yout
h m
ento
ring
prog
ram
s (on
e-on
-one
, int
erge
nera
tiona
l) Ra
posa
, 201
9 9-
16-y
ear-o
lds;
mea
n ag
e of
12.
Ove
rall
effe
ct si
ze a
cros
s out
com
es a
nd p
rogr
ams:
He
dges
g 0
.21.
Pr
ogra
ms w
ith b
ette
r out
com
es h
ad th
e fo
llow
ing
char
acte
ristic
s:
High
er p
erce
ntag
e of
mal
e m
ente
es.
Hi
gher
per
cent
age
of m
ale
men
tors
.

44
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 1
4
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
Hi
gher
per
cent
age
of m
ale
men
tors
who
wor
ked
in
the
help
ing
prof
essio
ns.
Prog
ram
s with
smal
ler e
ffect
s had
the
follo
win
g ch
arac
teris
tic:
Pr
ogra
ms s
pecif
ying
long
er m
eetin
g du
ratio
nsM
any
othe
r var
iabl
es w
ere
mea
sure
d as
pot
entia
l m
oder
ator
s of e
ffect
s, bu
t sho
wed
no
impa
ct o
n fin
ding
s.
Atte
ntio
n M
indf
ulne
ss-b
ased
inte
rven
tions
Du
nnin
g, 2
019
Mea
n ag
es fr
om 4
.7
to 1
7.4;
mos
t wer
e ol
der t
han
12.
For R
CTs w
ith a
ctiv
e co
ntro
l con
ditio
ns:
Not a
stat
istica
lly si
gnifi
cant
effe
ct.
Body
imag
e Ae
robi
c exe
rcise
Re
sista
nce
exer
cise
Com
bine
d ae
robi
c and
resis
tanc
e (1
stud
y)
Rodr
igue
z-Ay
llon,
20
19
14-1
8-ye
ar-o
lds
No d
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n ex
perim
enta
l and
cont
rol
Body
imag
e in
terv
entio
ns
Soul
akov
a, 2
019
(3)
14-1
6 ye
ars o
ldNo
effe
cts.
(Effe
cts w
ere
foun
d fo
r you
nger
ado
lesc
ents
)
Body
imag
e: tr
ait b
ody
surv
eilla
nce
(neg
ativ
e ou
tcom
e)
Yoga
(1 st
udy)
Ro
drig
uez-
Ayllo
n,
2019
13
-17
Sign
ifica
nt m
oder
ate
decr
ease
s, in
vers
ely
rela
ted
to
chan
ge i
n ph
ysica
l sel
f-wor
th
Cogn
itive
aut
onom
y Se
lect
ed m
ale-
only
gen
der-
neut
ral
scho
ol a
nd co
mm
unity
-bas
ed
prog
ram
s to
deve
lop
youn
g m
en’s
wel
lbei
ng
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
yea
rs o
f age
Po
sitiv
e ef
fect
Com
mun
icatio
n an
d fa
cilita
tion
skill
s So
cial a
nd e
mot
iona
l ski
lls
deve
lopm
ent:
Men
torin
g (re
siden
tial;
peer
-led)
(1 st
udy)
Barr
y, 2
018
15-2
5-ye
ar-o
lds
Posit
ive
effe
ct
Com
mun
ity e
ngag
emen
t So
cial a
nd e
mot
iona
l ski
lls
deve
lopm
ent:
Yout
h co
mm
unity
Ba
rry,
201
8 8-
18-y
ear-o
lds,
prim
arily
mal
e fro
mPo
sitiv
e im
pact
on
com
mun
ity e
ngag
emen
t

45
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 1
5
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
spor
ts in
terv
entio
n (1
stu
dy)
blac
k an
d et
hnic
min
ority
gro
ups
recr
uite
d fro
m
inne
r-city
Lond
on
scho
ols
Conn
ecte
dnes
s St
uden
t Suc
cess
Ski
lls (E
mot
iona
l Re
gula
tion)
(1 st
udy)
Pa
ndey
, 201
8 12
-15
year
s old
Ef
fect
on
fem
ales
Copi
ng sk
ills/
Copi
ng a
nd re
silie
nce
Socia
l and
em
otio
nal s
kills
de
velo
pmen
t: M
ento
ring
(resid
entia
l; pe
er-le
d) (
1 st
udy)
Barr
y, 2
018
15-2
5-ye
ar-o
lds
Posit
ive
effe
ct fo
r cop
ing
skill
s
Univ
ersa
l sch
ool-b
ased
men
tal
heal
th p
rom
otio
n (s
tres
s m
anag
emen
t pro
gram
; SEL
pr
ogra
m; 1
stud
y ea
ch)
O’Co
nnor
, 201
8 12
-14
year
s old
(s
tres
s m
anag
emen
t; SE
L)
Stre
ss m
anag
emen
t: Im
prov
ed co
ping
stra
tegi
es,
incr
ease
d us
e of
rela
xatio
n st
rate
gies
SEL:
Effe
ctiv
e co
ping
stra
tegi
es
Emot
iona
l int
ellig
ence
/em
otio
nal a
ttent
ion
and
clarit
y/em
otio
nal c
ompe
tenc
e/em
otio
nal
adju
stm
ent/
emot
iona
l aw
aren
ess
Sele
cted
mal
e-on
ly g
ende
r-ne
utra
l sc
hool
and
com
mun
ity-b
ased
pr
ogra
ms t
o de
velo
p yo
ung
men
’s w
ellb
eing
(8 st
udie
s)
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
yea
rs o
f age
Po
sitiv
e ef
fect
Sele
cted
mix
ed g
ende
r, ge
nder
-ne
utra
l sch
ool-
and
com
mun
ity-
base
d pr
ogra
ms t
o de
velo
p yo
ung
men
’s w
ellb
eing
(18
stud
ies)
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
Po
sitiv
e ch
ange
s, m
ostly
in m
ales
Life
skill
s edu
catio
n (1
stud
y)
Nash
eeda
, 201
9 15
-17-
year
-old
sEm
otio
nal a
djus
tmen
t im
prov
ed
Univ
ersa
l sch
ool-b
ased
men
tal
heal
th p
rom
otio
n (m
indf
ulne
ss; 1
st
udy)
O’Co
nnor
, 201
8 15
-18-
year
old
sPo
sitiv
e ch
ange
s in
stud
ents
’ bel
iefs
and
att
itude
s to
war
d pe
ople
with
men
tal i
llnes
s
Emot
iona
l wel
l-bei
ng
Inte
ract
ions
with
nat
ure
Tillm
ann,
201
8 Ch
ildre
n an
d te
enag
ers,
18 y
ears
Fi
ndin
gs n
ot a
vaila
ble
by a
ge g
roup
.

46
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 1
6
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
old
and
youn
ger
With
rem
oval
of l
ow-q
ualit
y pa
pers
, onl
y 10
out
of 2
3 fin
ding
s ide
ntifi
ed a
sign
ifica
nt p
ositi
ve re
latio
nshi
p.
Empa
thy
Life
skill
s edu
catio
n (1
stud
y)
Nash
eeda
, 201
9 15
-17-
year
-old
sIm
prov
ed
Exec
utiv
e fu
nctio
ns
Min
dful
ness
-bas
ed in
terv
entio
ns
Dunn
ing,
201
9 M
ean
ages
from
4.7
to
17.
4; m
ost w
ere
olde
r tha
n 12
.
For R
CTs w
ith a
ctiv
e co
ntro
l con
ditio
ns:
Not a
stat
istica
lly si
gnifi
cant
effe
ct.
Expl
anat
ory
styl
e Fi
nnish
der
ivat
ive
of th
e Pe
nn
Resil
ienc
y Pr
ogra
m (c
ogni
tive-
beha
vior
al d
epre
ssio
n pr
even
tion
prog
ram
) (2
stud
ies)
18
Bast
ouni
s, 20
1619
Ov
eral
l inc
lude
d st
udie
s: 8
-17.
M
ean
ages
in 2
st
udie
s: 1
3 an
d 14
ye
ars o
f age
No e
ffect
on
expl
anat
ory
styl
e fo
r all
stud
ies/
all a
ge
grou
ps.
Feel
ings
Hi
gh-in
tens
ity in
terv
al tr
aini
ng
with
aer
obics
v co
ntro
l and
co
mbi
ned
v co
ntro
l (1
stud
y)
Rodr
igue
z-Ay
llon,
20
19
14-1
6 ye
ars o
ldFe
elin
gs im
prov
ed si
gnifi
cant
ly o
nly
in th
e ae
robi
c gro
up
Happ
ines
s Ta
i Chi
v g
ymna
stics
Ro
drig
uez-
Ayllo
n,
2019
13
-16
No e
ffect
of e
xper
imen
tal g
roup
Help
-see
king
(lik
elih
ood
of se
ekin
g, in
crea
sed
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
how
for s
elf a
nd o
ther
s)
Sele
cted
mal
e-on
ly g
ende
r-se
nsiti
ve co
mm
unity
- and
scho
ol-
base
d pr
ogra
ms t
o de
velo
p yo
ung
men
’s w
ellb
eing
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
of 1
5 an
d 15
.5
Posit
ive
Vide
o in
terv
entio
n (d
ocum
enta
ry
inte
rven
tion
with
edu
catio
n; 1
st
udy)
Jano
usko
va, 2
017
Youn
g pe
ople
; 4 o
f 23
stud
ies w
ere
cond
ucte
d w
ith
seco
ndar
y sc
hool
st
uden
ts
Mixe
d fin
ding
s for
atti
tude
s tow
ard
help
-see
king
. No
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
on
help
-see
king
beh
avio
r.
Men
tal h
ealth
aw
aren
ess (
1 RC
T an
d 1
Solo
mon
4 g
roup
s des
ign
with
onl
y h
igh
scho
ol p
opul
atio
ns
Sale
rno,
201
6 Ov
eral
l, gr
ades
5
thro
ugh
12.
Som
e st
udie
s with
Neith
er st
udy
foun
d im
prov
emen
ts in
hel
p-se
ekin
g.

47
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 1
7
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
mea
sure
d he
lp-s
eeki
ng)
high
scho
ol
popu
latio
n
Inte
rest
in d
iver
sity
of co
ntac
t Se
lect
ed m
ixed
gen
der,
gend
er-
neut
ral s
choo
l- an
d co
mm
unity
-ba
sed
prog
ram
s to
deve
lop
youn
g m
en’s
wel
lbei
ng
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
In
crea
sed,
mos
tly in
mal
es
Life
satis
fact
ion/
sens
e th
at li
fe is
wor
thw
hile
So
cial a
nd e
mot
iona
l ski
lls
deve
lopm
ent:
Socia
l act
ion
inte
rven
tions
(mul
ti-co
mpo
nent
) (2
RCT
stud
ies)
Barr
y, 2
018
14-2
5-ye
ar-o
lds,
mos
tly fr
omdi
sadv
anta
ged
area
s
Posit
ive
effe
cts o
n lif
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n an
d lif
e se
en a
s w
orth
whi
le
Bite
Back
and
Bite
Back
Sch
ool
(Onl
ine
posit
ive
psyc
holo
gy
inte
rven
tions
)
Bano
s, 20
17
12-1
8-ye
ar-o
lds
No im
prov
emen
t in
life
satis
fact
ion
scor
es.
Men
tal h
ealth
lite
racy
(kno
wle
dge)
M
enta
l hea
lth a
war
enes
s (2
RCTs
an
d 1
Solo
mon
4 g
roup
s des
ign
with
onl
y h
igh
scho
ol p
opul
atio
ns)
Sale
rno,
201
6 Ov
eral
l, gr
ades
5
thro
ugh
12.
Som
e st
udie
s with
hi
gh sc
hool
po
pula
tion
All 3
stud
ies f
ound
impr
ovem
ents
in k
now
ledg
e of
sp
ecifi
c diso
rder
s or m
enta
l hea
lth li
tera
cy g
ener
ally
.
Men
tal h
ealth
/men
tal h
ealth
stat
us
Sele
cted
Mixe
d Ge
nder
, Gen
der-
Neut
ral S
choo
l- an
d co
mm
unity
-ba
sed
prog
ram
s to
deve
lop
youn
g m
en’s
wel
lbei
ng
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
Po
sitiv
e ch
ange
s, m
ostly
in m
ales
Cros
sFit
exer
cise
(1 st
udy)
Ro
drig
uez-
Ayllo
n,
2019
15
.4 m
ean
age
No si
gnifi
cant
effe
cts f
or fu
ll st
udy
sam
ple
Inte
ract
ions
with
nat
ure
Tillm
an, 2
018
Child
ren
and
teen
ager
s, 18
yea
rs
old
and
youn
ger,
mos
t ear
ly
adol
esce
nts
Find
ings
not
ava
ilabl
e by
age
gro
up.
Over
all:
with
rem
oval
of l
ow-q
ualit
y pa
pers
, 8 o
ut o
f 12
findi
ngs i
dent
ified
a si
gnifi
cant
pos
itive
rela
tions
hip.

48
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 1
8
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
E-he
alth
4U
Bano
s, 20
17
3rd
and
4th
year
of
seco
ndar
y sc
hool
M
inor
impr
ovem
ent.
Min
dful
ness
M
indf
ulne
ss-b
ased
inte
rven
tions
Du
nnin
g, 2
019
Mea
n ag
es fr
om 4
.7
to 1
7.4;
mos
t wer
e ol
der t
han
12.
For R
CTs w
ith a
ctiv
e co
ntro
ls:
Mea
n ef
fect
size
0.4
2 (C
I .16
to .6
7].
Larg
er e
ffect
size
s wer
e as
socia
ted
with
old
er a
ges.
Mot
ivat
ion
to ch
ange
So
cial a
nd e
mot
iona
l ski
lls
deve
lopm
ent:
Men
torin
g (re
siden
tial p
lus 9
mon
ths o
f m
ento
ring)
(1
stud
y20)
Barr
y, 2
018
Youn
g pe
ople
di
spla
ying
ant
isocia
l be
havi
or; n
on-
spec
ified
age
rang
e
No d
iffer
ence
Optim
ism
Sele
cted
mix
ed g
ende
r, ge
nder
-ne
utra
l sch
ool-
and
com
mun
ity-
base
d pr
ogra
ms t
o de
velo
p yo
ung
men
’s w
ellb
eing
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
Po
sitiv
e ch
ange
s, m
ostly
in m
ales
Posit
ive
men
tal h
ealth
pro
mot
ion
outc
omes
Co
mpo
nent
s of u
nive
rsal
ad
oles
cent
men
tal h
ealth
in
terv
entio
ns
Al
coho
l and
dru
g ed
ucat
ion
Em
otio
nal r
egul
atio
n
Inte
rper
sona
l ski
lls
Sk
ills t
o re
sist p
eer
pres
sure
Skee
n, 2
019
10-1
9 Po
sitiv
e im
pact
Posit
ive
wel
lbei
ng
Volle
ybal
l (1
stud
y)
Man
sfie
ld, 2
018
13-1
8-ye
ar-o
ld
fem
ales
Ef
fect
s dep
ende
d on
ext
ent t
o w
hich
the
spor
t met
st
uden
ts’ p
sych
olog
ical n
eeds
Aero
bics
, hip
-hop
, bod
y co
nditi
onin
g, ic
e sk
atin
g
Man
sfie
ld, 2
018
17
-22-
year
-old
s Ae
robi
cs a
nd h
ip-h
op ra
ted
posit
ive
wel
lbei
ng h
ighe
r th
an b
ody
cond
ition
ing
and
ice-s
katin
g gr
oup;
Posit
ive
outlo
ok
Socia
l and
em
otio
nal s
kills
Ba
rry,
201
8 Yo
ung
peop
le
No d
iffer
ence

49
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 1
9
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
deve
lopm
ent:
Men
torin
g (re
siden
tial p
lus 9
mon
ths o
f m
ento
ring)
(1 st
udy21
)
disp
layi
ng a
ntiso
cial
beha
vior
; non
-sp
ecifi
ed a
ge ra
nge
Posit
ive
yout
h de
velo
pmen
t out
com
es (g
roup
ed a
s so
cial a
nd e
mot
iona
l ski
lls; a
ttitu
des t
owar
d se
lf,
othe
rs a
nd sc
hool
; pos
itive
socia
l beh
avio
r; em
otio
nal d
istre
ss; a
cade
mic
perfo
rman
ce;
cond
uct p
robl
ems;
subs
tanc
e us
e; a
nd a
dditi
onal
ou
tcom
es in
som
e st
udie
s [e.
g., h
igh
scho
ol
grad
uatio
n; re
latio
nshi
ps])
Scho
ol-b
ased
Soc
ial a
nd E
mot
iona
l Le
arni
ng In
terv
entio
ns fo
r Pos
itive
Yo
uth
Deve
lopm
ent
Tayl
or, 2
01722
23
K-12
; ado
lesc
ent
deve
lopm
enta
l st
age
defin
ed a
sag
es 1
4-18
/gra
des
9-12
Posit
ive
com
bine
d ef
fect
size
24 .1
8* (C
I .05
-.31)
was
st
atist
ically
sign
ifica
nt.
Outc
omes
for i
ndiv
idua
l out
com
es a
re n
ot a
vaila
ble
for
adol
esce
nts.
Acro
ss a
ll st
udie
s, tw
o va
riabl
es e
mer
ged
as si
gnifi
cant
pr
edict
ors:
--Hig
her t
otal
sam
ple
attr
ition
(low
er e
ffect
ive
size)
. --P
artic
ipan
t age
was
initi
ally
neg
ativ
ely
rela
ted
to
posit
ive
effe
ct si
ze, b
ut w
hen
a m
eta-
regr
essio
n of
the
two
pred
ictor
s (at
triti
on a
nd a
ge) w
as co
nduc
ted,
the
age
diffe
renc
e w
as n
ot si
gnifi
cant
. Ot
her d
emog
raph
ics (%
whi
te st
uden
ts, %
bla
ck
stud
ents
, % fe
mal
e, sc
hool
com
mun
ity lo
catio
n,
dom
estic
or i
nter
natio
nal s
tudy
) wer
e no
t ass
ocia
ted
with
the
com
bine
d ef
fect
size
.
Prep
arat
ion
for a
dulth
ood
Varie
ty o
f int
erve
ntio
ns
Burr
us, 2
018
Adol
esce
nts
inclu
ding
mid
dle
scho
ol
Impr
ovem
ents
in:
Heal
thy
rela
tions
hips
Pa
rent
-chi
ld co
mm
unica
tion
Adol
esce
nt d
evel
opm
ent
Psyc
holo
gica
l wel
lbei
ng
Gend
er-s
ensit
ive
Com
mun
ity- a
nd
scho
ol-b
ased
pro
gram
s to
deve
lop
youn
g m
en’s
wel
lbei
ng
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
of 1
5 an
d 15
.5
Posit
ive
High
-inte
nsity
inte
rval
trai
ning
(H
IIT) (
Exer
cise-
base
d in
terv
entio
ns) (
1 st
udy)
Pand
ey, 2
018
Grad
es 9
and
10
No st
atist
ically
sig
nific
ant e
ffect
Qua
lity
of li
fe -
enjo
ymen
t and
satis
fact
ion
Gend
er-s
ensit
ive co
mm
unity
- and
sc
hool
-bas
ed p
rogr
ams t
o de
velo
p Gw
ythe
r, 20
19
Mea
n ag
es o
f 15
and
15.5
Po
sitiv
e

50
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 2
0
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
youn
g m
en’s
wel
lbei
ng
Resh
aped
per
cept
ions
abo
ut “b
eing
a m
an”
Com
mun
ity- a
nd sc
hool
-bas
ed
prog
ram
s to
deve
lop
youn
g m
en’s
wel
lbei
ng
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
of 1
5 an
d 15
.5
Posit
ive
effe
cts (
base
d on
par
ticip
ant c
omm
ents
)
Rela
tions
hip
skill
s So
cial a
nd e
mot
iona
l ski
lls
deve
lopm
ent:
Men
torin
g (re
siden
tial;
peer
-led)
(1 st
udy)
Barr
y, 2
018
15-2
5-ye
ar-o
lds
Posit
ive
effe
ct
Resil
ienc
e M
indf
ulne
ss-B
ased
Inte
rven
tions
(1
) So
ulak
ova,
201
9 Gr
ades
1-1
2 Si
gnifi
cant
, alth
ough
smal
ler t
han
for o
ther
mea
sure
s.
Inte
ract
ions
with
nat
ure
Tillm
an, 2
019
Child
ren
and
teen
ager
s, 18
and
yo
unge
r, m
ostly
ea
rly a
dole
scen
ts
(not
def
ined
)
Find
ings
not
repo
rted
by
age
grou
p.
Over
all,
3 ou
t of 5
find
ings
wer
e po
sitiv
e an
d sig
nific
ant.
Self-
effic
acy25
Th
e Co
uncil
26; S
elec
ted
mal
e-on
ly
gend
er-n
eutr
al p
rogr
ams t
o de
velo
p yo
ung
men
’s w
ellb
eing
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
Si
gnifi
cant
pos
itive
effe
cts f
or sc
hool
self-
effic
acy
and
futu
re se
lf-ef
ficac
y (m
ales
onl
y)
Sele
cted
mix
ed g
ende
r, ge
nder
-ne
utra
l sch
ool-
and
com
mun
ity-
base
d pr
ogra
ms t
o de
velo
p yo
ung
men
’s w
ellb
eing
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
Po
sitiv
e ch
ange
s, m
ostly
in m
ales
Self-
effic
acy:
socia
l Yo
ga (1
stud
y)
Rodr
igue
z-Ay
llon,
20
19
11-1
6-ye
ar-o
lds
Sign
ifica
nt in
crea
se
Self-
este
em/s
elf-c
onfid
ence
/sel
f-im
age/
self-
wor
th
Life
Skill
s for
Men
tal H
ealth
Ca
tala
no, 2
019
(94,
with
2 fo
r te
ens w
ithou
t hi
gh ri
sk o
r ex
istin
g
14-1
6-ye
ar-o
lds
Impr
oved
self-
este
em

51
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 2
1
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
prob
lem
s)
Sele
cted
mal
e-on
ly g
ende
r-se
nsiti
ve C
omm
unity
- and
scho
ol-
base
d pr
ogra
ms t
o de
velo
p yo
ung
men
’s w
ellb
eing
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
of 1
5 an
d 15
.5
Posit
ive
effe
cts
Life
skill
s edu
catio
n (4
stud
ies)
Na
shee
da, 2
019
Varie
d, a
ll hi
gh
scho
ol st
uden
ts
Self-
este
em, s
elf-i
mag
e, a
nd co
nfid
ence
impr
oved
Aero
bic e
xerc
ise to
ach
ieve
60-
80%
m
axim
um h
eart
rate
(1)
Rodr
igue
z-Ay
llon,
20
19
13-1
9 ye
ars o
ld
Posit
ive
effe
ct (a
ll fe
mal
es)
Aero
bic e
xerc
ise
Resis
tanc
e ex
ercis
e Co
mbi
ned
aero
bic a
nd re
sista
nce
(1 st
udy)
Rodr
igue
z-Ay
llon,
20
19
14-1
8-ye
ar-o
lds
All g
roup
s im
prov
ed o
n gl
obal
self-
este
em, w
ith g
reat
er
chan
ges i
n th
e re
sista
nce
grou
p.
Activ
e vi
deo
gam
e pr
ogra
m (1
st
udy)
Ro
drig
uez-
Ayllo
n,
2019
15
-19-
year
-old
s No
effe
cts
Socia
l and
em
otio
nal s
kills
de
velo
pmen
t: M
ento
ring
(resid
entia
l; pe
er-le
d)
Barr
y, 2
018
15-2
5-ye
ar-o
lds
Posit
ive
effe
ct fo
r con
fiden
ce
Yout
h-le
d co
mm
unity
de
velo
pmen
t pro
gram
(1
qual
itativ
e st
udy)
Penn
ingt
on, 2
018
Not s
pecif
ied
May
hav
e ha
d an
effe
ct
Inte
ract
ions
with
nat
ure
Ti
llman
, 201
8 Ch
ildre
n an
d te
enag
ers,
18 a
nd
youn
ger,
mos
t ear
ly
adol
esce
nts (
not
defin
ed)
Find
ings
not
ava
ilabl
e by
age
gro
up.
Over
all,
10 o
ut o
f 13
findi
ngs w
ere
non-
signi
fican
t.

52
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
| 2
2
Wel
lbei
ng O
utco
me,
by
Socio
-env
ironm
enta
l De
velo
pmen
t Int
erve
ntio
n Le
vel a
nd O
utco
me
Mea
sure
men
t Lev
el
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/ Sp
ecifi
c Int
erve
ntio
n Re
view
or M
ajor
St
udy
(Mos
t Re
cent
Firs
t)
Age
or O
ther
Gro
up
in R
evie
wed
Stu
dies
Ev
iden
ce S
umm
ary
(inclu
ding
not
able
subg
roup
di
ffere
nces
, if n
oted
by
revi
ewer
)
Com
mun
ity-b
ased
crea
tive
activ
ities
Da
s, 20
1716
11
-19,
and
15-
24,
year
-old
s In
crea
sed
self-
conf
iden
ce
Incr
ease
d se
lf-es
teem
Self-
regu
latio
n te
chni
ques
Va
n Ge
nugt
sen,
20
16
Adol
esce
nts o
nly
Smal
l to
med
ium
effe
ct o
n se
lf-es
teem
Self-
refle
ctio
n Co
mm
unity
- and
scho
ol-b
ased
pr
ogra
ms t
o de
velo
p yo
ung
men
’s w
ellb
eing
Gwyt
her,
2019
M
ean
ages
15
and
15.5
yea
rs
Posit
ive
effe
cts (
base
d on
par
ticip
ant c
omm
ents
)
Self-
Regu
latio
n/em
otio
n re
gula
tion
Univ
ersa
l sch
ool-b
ased
men
tal
heal
th p
rom
otio
n (m
indf
ulne
ss
prog
ram
; 1 st
udy)
O’Co
nnor
, 201
8 15
-18
yea
rs o
ld
Impr
oved
em
otio
n re
gula
tion
Min
dful
Yog
a (M
indf
ulne
ss/Y
oga
inte
rven
tions
) (1
stud
y)
Pand
ey, 2
018
Gr
ades
9-1
2
No e
ffect
Pers
onal
& S
ocia
l Res
pons
ibili
ty
mod
el (E
xerc
ise-b
ased
in
terv
entio
ns)
Pand
ey, 2
018
Stud
ents
from
3
publ
ic sc
hool
s (m
ean
age
of 1
3.6
year
s)
Posit
ive
effe
ct o
n pr
oces
s sel
f-reg
ulat
ion
Socia
l adj
ustm
ent
Life
skill
s edu
catio
n Na
shee
da, 2
019
15-1
7-ye
ar-o
lds
No im
prov
emen
t
Socia
l beh
avio
r M
indf
ulne
ss-b
ased
inte
rven
tions
Du
nnin
g, 2
019
Mea
n ag
es fr
om 4
.7
to 1
7.4;
mos
t wer
e ol
der t
han
12.
For R
CTs w
ith a
ctiv
e co
ntro
l con
ditio
ns: N
ot a
st
atist
ically
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
.

53
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 4: Findings by Outcome
Endnotes
1. Note that the intervention itself did not comprise efforts to change the out-comes listed in these rows. Rather, the outcomes were measured post-hoc to examine whether the new neighborhoods (requiring higher rent payments) actually had more health-promoting environments.
2. For details on all Moving to Opportunity’ citations, see the single Evidence Table, Moving to Opportunity.
3. There are no reviews per se of the Moving to Opportunity’s experiment’s effects on teen mental health. The citations are for individual studies using aspects of the MTO database. All citations are summarized on the Moving to Opportunity Evidence Table in Appendix 5.
4. Halfway through the Great Smoky Mountains study, an American Indian tribe opened a casino and began sharing proceeds with families in the tribe. The Great Smoky Mountains study was originally an epidemiological study of the incidence and progression of mental health problems among children in a defined geographic area (American Indians and others).
5. We included only the intervention studies included in the review.
6. This 2017 review is included because of differences between Marx, 2017, and Berger. Marx, 2017, is a Cochrane Collaboration review with more rigorous study inclusion criteria than the Berger et al. (2018) review. Berger et al. included studies of associations as well as interventions; Marx et al. included only interventions (RCTs, quasi-experiments, controlled before and after, interrupted time series). However, Berger et al. focused more on psychological outcomes than did Marx et al. We only reported findings from intervention studies from the Berger et al review; both reviews come to the same conclusion that more primary research, of higher quality, is needed, before conclusions can be drawn.
7. Note that Yap subsequently (2019) reported on the medium-term effects of a tailored web-based parenting intervention tested in a randomized con-trolled trial. The RCT showed some success Yap MBH, Cardamone-Breen MC, Rapee RM, Lawrence KA, Mackinnon AJ, Mahtani S, Jorm AF. 2019. Medium-Term Effects of a Tailored Web-Based Parenting Intervention to Reduce Adolescent Risk of Depression and Anxiety: 12-Month Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial J Med Internet Res 2019;21(8):e13628 DOI: 10.2196/13628 PMID: 31418422. https://www.jmir.org/2019/8/e13628/
8. Parent involvement, staff skills training, activities for children/adolescents.
9. See Anyon et al. for youth outcomes.
10. The highest positive effect size was for the Mindfulness component of inter-ventions (-0.219).
11. Also see Explanatory Style.
12. Kept Bastounis (2016) as a key document for its inclusion of the Penn Resiliency Program. We could identify no subsequent reviews of the Penn Resiliency Program, but the Program is still active, according to its website. See https://ppc.sas.upenn.edu/services/penn-resilience-training.
13. Think, Feel, Act.
14. Also see anxiety and depressive symptomatology, internalizing symptoms and total symptom score outcomes.
15. Study was the one of strongest quality, among 3 mentoring studies with young people at risk of criminality
16. We report on the Das 2017 “overview of reviews” only for Digital Platform interventions, Community-based Creative activities, and school-based suicide prevention interventions because we could find no subsequent sys-tematic reviews of these intervention types. Further, most of the interven-tions included in Das et al. 2017 are focused on treatment or prevention of disorders.
17. Also see internalizing symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and depression symp-toms
18. Also see anxiety and depression symptoms.
19. We kept Bastounis (2016) as a key document for its inclusion of the Penn Resiliency Program. We could identify no subsequent reviews of the Penn Resiliency Program, but the Program is still active, according to its website. See https://ppc.sas.upenn.edu/services/penn-resilience-training.
20. Study was the one of strongest quality, among 3 mentoring studies with young people at risk of criminality
21. Study was the one of strongest quality, among 3 mentoring studies with young people at risk of criminality
22. We kept this 2017 review in the RER because it appears to be the most re-cent systematic review that enabled analysis of SEL interventions by adoles-cent/teen age. The review by Barry. et al. (2018) included SEL; however, the review focused only on interventions implemented in the United Kingdom. Taylor et al. (2017) included both U.S. and international interventions.
23. Note that authors of this review included two (Taylor and Weissberg) employed at the Center for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL).
24. According to the authors, “in order to examine the effectiveness of SEL interventions across demographic groups, it was necessary to collapse the outcome categories into a single intervention level ES to obtain sufficient sample sizes.” Only 11% of 82 interventions focused on adolescents ages 14-18/grades 9-12.
25. Also see Skeen effects of programs with self-efficacy components
26. The Council intervention aimed to encourage solidarity amongst young men, question maladaptive stereotypes, and recognize strengths and collec-tive responsibilities.

54
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Moving Policy Upstream to Advance Adolescent Flourishing
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
D. Dougherty, N. LeBlanc, P. Armstrong, E. Cope, and the AcademyHealth & ACT for Health Team
With support from Well Being Trust
September 30, 2019

55
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Evidence Tables by Article Reviewed
1. A
rora
PG
, Co
llins
TA
, Dar
t E
H, H
erna
ndez
S, F
ette
rman
H, D
oll
B. M
ulti
-tie
red
Sys
tem
s o
f S
upp
ort
fo
r S
cho
ol-
Bas
ed M
enta
l Hea
lth:
A S
yste
mat
ic R
evie
w o
f D
epre
ssio
n In
terv
enti
ons
. S
cho
ol M
enta
l Hea
lth
[Int
erne
t]. 2
019
June
[ci
ted
201
9 A
ug 1
3]; 1
1(2)
:240
-264
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//lin
k.sp
ring
er.c
om
/art
icle
/10.
1007
%2F
s123
10-0
19-0
9314
-4FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
Sch
ool-a
ged
yout
h ag
es 6
to 2
1 ye
ars.
Da
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: 1
990-
2017
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
119
As
not
ed b
y au
thor
: Rev
iew
onl
y da
tes b
ack
until
199
0. D
ecisi
on to
con
duct
a sy
stem
atic
revi
ew in
stea
d of
a m
eta-
anal
ysis
resu
lted
in
a le
ss fo
rmal
ass
essm
ent o
f the
se p
rogr
ams
whe
n re
cent
met
a-an
alys
es h
ave
dem
onst
rate
d th
at th
ese
type
s of i
nter
venti
ons a
re e
ffecti
ve.
Incl
udes
uni
vers
al,
sele
cted
, and
targ
eted
in
terv
entio
ns. E
ssen
tially
ar
gues
for t
arge
ted
with
in
univ
ersa
lism
.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed te
ens a
ges 1
3-18
—sp
ecify
by
stud
y if
auth
or d
oesn
’t ag
greg
ate
by re
leva
nt a
ge g
roup
: 11-
14
(Cha
plin
et a
l., 2
006)
, 11-
17 (C
onne
ll &
Dish
ion,
201
7), 1
5-17
(Hai
ns e
t al.,
19
94),
11-1
3 (H
oyin
g &
Mel
nyk,
201
6), 1
3-14
(Hoy
ing
et a
l., 2
016)
, 15-
20 (L
e &
Gob
ert,
2015
), 14
-16
(Mel
nyk
et a
l., 2
015)
, 12-
15 (M
ende
lson
et a
l., 2
015)
, 11
-14
(Sib
ingo
et a
l., 2
016)
, 10-
14 (S
mok
owsk
i et a
l., 2
016)
.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: 3
0 st
udie
s foc
used
on
Tier
1
prog
ram
s. 2
3 ou
t of t
he 3
0 st
udie
s yie
lded
pos
itive
re
sults
. Al
l thr
ee ti
ers c
onta
ined
pro
gram
s ide
ntifie
d as
eff
ectiv
e (7
7.5%
in T
ier 2
, 78.
9% in
Tie
r 3).
How
ever
, the
aut
hors
not
e th
at th
ere
are
a sw
ath
of im
plem
enta
tion
and
popu
latio
n iss
ues t
hat h
ave
yet t
o be
add
ress
ed, a
nd th
at so
lvin
g th
ese
issue
s is
criti
cal t
o de
liver
ing
an e
ffecti
ve M
TSS.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
—O
vera
ll: A
mul
ti-tie
red
syst
em o
f sup
port
(M
TSS)
invo
lves
the
deliv
ery
of e
vide
nce-
base
d se
rvic
es a
long
a c
ontin
uum
. U
nive
rsal
, or T
ier 1
, ser
vice
s are
impl
emen
ted
with
the
goal
of p
reve
nting
MH
conc
erns
whi
ch m
ight
serv
e as
a b
arrie
r to
acad
emic
ach
ieve
men
t. Ti
er 2
, or
sele
ctive
, ser
vice
s are
del
iver
ed w
ith th
e go
al o
f rem
edia
ting
stud
ents
at r
isk
for m
enta
l hea
lth c
once
rns,
whi
le T
ier 3
, or i
ndic
ated
or i
nten
sive,
serv
ices
ar
e im
plem
ente
d w
ith th
e go
al o
f tre
ating
you
th w
ith th
e hi
ghes
t lev
el o
f m
enta
l hea
lth n
eed.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Ps
ycIN
FO, E
RIC.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or e
quiv
alen
t (s
peci
fy):
Penn
Res
ilien
cy P
rogr
am (C
hapl
in e
t al.,
200
6), F
amily
Res
ourc
e Ce
nter
(Con
nell
& D
ishio
n, 2
017)
, str
ess i
nter
venti
on (H
ains
et a
l., 1
994)
, CO
PE (H
oyin
g &
Mel
nyk,
201
6; H
oyin
g et
al.,
201
6; M
elny
k et
al.,
201
5),
Rest
orin
g th
e N
ative
Am
eric
an S
pirit
(Le
& G
ober
t, 20
15),
RAP
club
(M
ende
lson
et a
l., 2
015)
, Min
dful
ness
inte
rven
tion
(Sib
ingo
et a
l., 2
016)
, Po
sitive
Acti
on P
rogr
am (S
mok
owsk
i et a
l., 2
016)
.
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy:
Artic
les i
nclu
ded
in th
e re
view
m
ust d
escr
ibe
a pr
even
tion
or in
terv
entio
n st
udy
that
ta
rget
ed o
r disc
usse
d de
pres
sive
sym
ptom
s in
scho
ol-a
ged
yout
h ag
es 6
-21
in a
US
scho
ol se
tting
.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Pr
imar
ily a
nxie
ty a
nd d
epre
ssio
n sy
mpt
omol
ogy.
Re
view
exc
lusi
on c
riter
ia—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: A
rticl
es
wer
e ex
clud
ed fr
om th
e re
view
if
they
faile
d to
mee
t the
incl
usio
n cr
iteria
det
aile
d ab
ove.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify)—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Dep
ress
ive
diso
rder
s and
dep
ress
ion
sym
ptom
olog
y (C
hapl
in e
t al.,
200
6; C
onne
ll &
Dish
ion,
201
7), a
nxie
ty/
depr
essio
n sy
mpt
omol
ogy
(Hai
ns, 1
994)
, wei
ght a
nd m
enta
l hea
lth (H
oyin
g &
Mel
nyk,
201
6; H
oyin
g et
al.,
201
6; M
elny
k et
al.,
201
5), s
uici
dalit
y (L
e &
Go
bert
, 201
5), t
raum
a (M
ende
lson
et a
l., 2
015)
, str
ess a
nd tr
aum
a (S
ibin
go e
t al
., 20
16),
emoti
onal
hea
lth (S
mok
owsk
i et a
l., 2
016)
.
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): N
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or p
eopl
e su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity, I
nter
pers
onal
) – S
peci
fy o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s mea
sure
d: N
/A
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
sCo
untr
y(ie
s): U
.S.
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
: NA
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, sc
hool
, fam
ily, w
ork,
re
crea
tion,
OST
): Sc
hool
, Ind
ivid
ual

56
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Chap
lin e
t al.,
200
611
-14
Penn
Res
ilien
cy P
rogr
amM
ixed
resu
lts o
n de
pres
sive
diso
rder
/sy
mpt
oms.
Pos
t-tes
t ES
of 0
.80.
Fou
nd
signi
fican
t int
erve
ntion
effe
cts o
n se
cond
ary
varia
bles
(e.g
., ho
pele
ssne
ss a
nd a
ttend
ance
).
From
Tab
le 1
onl
y th
e pr
imar
y fo
cus o
f eac
h in
terv
entio
n co
uld
be
glea
ned.
Conn
ell &
Dish
ion,
201
711
-17
Fam
ily R
esou
rce
Cent
erM
ixed
resu
lts o
n de
pres
sive
diso
rder
/sy
mpt
oms.
No
ES re
port
ed.
Hain
s, 1
994
15-1
7St
ress
inte
rven
tion
No
signi
fican
t res
ults
obs
erve
d on
anx
iety
/de
pres
sion
sym
ptom
s.
Hoyi
ng &
Mel
nyk,
201
611
-13
COPE
Positi
ve si
gnifi
cant
effe
ct o
bser
ved
on w
eigh
t an
d m
enta
l hea
lth (E
S =
0.22
).
Hoyi
ng e
t al.,
201
613
-14
COPE
Positi
ve si
gnifi
cant
effe
cts o
bser
ved
on w
eigh
t an
d m
enta
l hea
lth (E
S =
0.16
).
Le &
Gob
ert,
2015
15-2
0Re
stor
ing
the
Nati
ve A
mer
ican
Spi
ritPo
sitive
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
obs
erve
d on
su
icid
ality
(No
ES p
rovi
ded)
.
Mel
nyk
et a
l., 2
015
14-1
6CO
PEPo
sitive
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
s obs
erve
d on
wei
ght
and
men
tal h
ealth
(ES
= 2.
37).
Men
delso
n et
al.,
201
512
-15
RAP
club
Positi
ve si
gnifi
cant
effe
ct o
bser
ved
on tr
aum
a (E
S =
0.10
).
Sibi
ngo
et a
l., 2
016
11-1
4M
indf
ulne
ssPo
sitive
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
s obs
erve
d on
stre
ss
and
trau
ma
(No
ES p
rovi
ded)
.
Smok
owsk
i et a
l., 2
016
10-1
4Po
sitive
Acti
on P
rogr
amN
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
obs
erve
d on
em
otion
al
heal
th.

57
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
2. B
agna
ll A
, So
uth
J, D
i Mar
tino
S. 2
018,
Mar
. A s
yste
mat
ic r
evie
w o
f in
terv
enti
ons
to
bo
ost
so
cial
rel
atio
ns t
hro
ugh
imp
rove
men
ts in
co
mm
unit
y in
fras
truc
ture
(pla
ces
and
sp
aces
). Lo
ndo
n: W
hat
Wo
rks
Cen
tre
for
Wel
lbei
ng. h
ttp
s://
wha
two
rksw
ellb
eing
.org
/pro
duc
t/p
lace
s-sp
aces
-peo
ple
-and
-wel
lbei
ng/
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
No
expl
icit
rang
e of
age
s/de
velo
pmen
tal g
roup
s, th
ough
focu
s was
for a
dults
(loo
sely
defi
ned
as a
ged
betw
een
16 a
nd 6
5).
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 199
7-20
18#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 5
1M
ost o
f the
evi
denc
e w
as o
f poo
r, or
poo
r to
mod
erat
e qu
ality
. The
bett
er-q
ualit
y ev
iden
ce
was
qua
litati
ve in
nat
ure,
and
mos
t of t
he
revi
ew’s
findi
ngs t
here
fore
com
e fr
om th
e th
emati
c sy
nthe
sis o
f qua
litati
ve e
vide
nce,
su
pple
men
ted
by q
uanti
tativ
e ev
iden
ce w
here
ap
plic
able
.
Revi
ew e
xclu
ded
stud
ies t
hat
incl
uded
onl
y ol
der a
dults
or o
nly
child
ren.
Onl
y 14
stud
ies w
ere
univ
ersa
l/op
en to
all.
15
stud
ies w
ere
of p
opul
ation
s in
“are
as o
f de
priv
ation
”; 7
stud
ies i
nclu
ded
raci
al a
nd e
thni
c m
inor
ity g
roup
s;
5 st
udie
s inc
lude
d ec
onom
ical
ly
disa
dvan
tage
d pe
ople
.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed te
ens a
ges 1
3-18
—sp
ecify
by
stud
y if
auth
or d
oesn
’t ag
greg
ate
by re
leva
nt a
ge g
roup
: (10
st
udie
s) (B
lake
and
Clo
utier
-Fish
er 2
009,
Dan
iels
et a
l. 20
09, G
omez
- Fel
icia
no
et a
l. 20
09, M
anga
du e
t al.
2016
, Ohm
er e
t al.
2009
, McL
ean
and
Rahd
er
2013
, Mor
ris a
nd O
’Brie
n 20
11, M
urra
y an
d De
vecc
hi 2
016,
Wel
ls et
al.
2012
, Zi
eff e
t al.
2016
).
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: M
ODE
RATE
evi
denc
e th
at
com
mun
ity h
ubs m
ay p
rom
ote
soci
al c
ohes
ion
thro
ugh
the
mix
ing
of d
iffer
ent s
ocia
l or a
ge/
gene
ratio
nal g
roup
s; in
crea
se so
cial
cap
ital a
nd
build
trus
t bet
wee
n pe
ople
in c
omm
uniti
es;
incr
ease
wid
er so
cial
net
wor
ks a
nd in
tera
ction
be
twee
n co
mm
unity
mem
bers
; and
incr
ease
in
divi
dual
s’ k
now
ledg
e or
skill
s.
MO
DERA
TE e
vide
nce
that
cha
nges
to
neig
hbou
rhoo
d de
sign
may
pos
itive
ly a
ffect
se
nse
of b
elon
ging
and
prid
e in
a c
omm
unity
.
MO
DERA
TE e
vide
nce
that
gre
en a
nd b
lue
spac
e in
terv
entio
ns th
at p
rovi
de th
e op
port
unity
to
parti
cipa
te in
acti
vitie
s or m
eetin
gs im
prov
e so
cial
inte
racti
ons,
incr
ease
soci
al n
etw
orks
, an
d bo
ndin
g an
d br
idgi
ng so
cial
cap
ital,
incr
ease
ph
ysic
al a
ctivi
ty a
nd h
ealth
y ea
ting,
and
impr
ove
com
mun
ity m
embe
rs’ s
kills
and
kno
wle
dge.
2 st
udie
s in
the
revi
ew sh
owed
no
impa
ct; b
oth
wer
e “t
op d
own
urba
n re
new
al p
roje
cts.”
The
revi
ew a
lso fo
und
evid
ence
from
qua
litati
ve
stud
ies t
hat p
lace
and
spac
e in
terv
entio
ns c
an
have
pot
entia
lly n
egati
ve e
ffect
s in
term
s of
som
e re
side
nts f
eelin
g ex
clud
ed, p
artic
ular
ly
in re
latio
n to
eve
nts t
hat t
arge
t or c
eleb
rate
pa
rticu
lar g
roup
s.
The
revi
ew fo
und
evid
ence
that
pla
ce a
nd
spac
e in
terv
entio
ns th
at p
rovi
de a
foca
l poi
nt
or a
targ
eted
gro
up a
ctivi
ty m
ay b
e us
eful
in (a
) pr
omoti
ng so
cial
coh
esio
n be
twee
n di
ffere
nt
grou
ps a
nd (b
) ove
rcom
ing
barr
iers
that
pre
vent
so
me
peop
le in
mar
gina
lised
gro
ups f
rom
taki
ng
part
in a
ctivi
ty.
The
qual
itativ
e sy
nthe
sis o
f pro
cess
out
com
es
iden
tified
som
e ke
y st
rate
gies
for s
ucce
ss
whe
n im
plem
entin
g co
mm
unity
infr
astr
uctu
re
chan
ges t
o pl
ace
or sp
ace,
whi
ch in
clud
ed:
acce
ssib
ility
; a c
omfo
rtab
le, f
riend
ly a
nd sa
fe
envi
ronm
ent;
invo
lvem
ent o
f com
mun
ity
mem
bers
in o
rgan
isatio
n an
d pl
anni
ng o
f co
mm
unity
infr
astr
uctu
re c
hang
es; i
nvol
vem
ent
of sk
illed
faci
litat
ors;
flex
ibili
ty; p
rovi
ding
a
foca
l poi
nt o
r rea
son
to in
tera
ct; a
void
ing
excl
usio
n; lo
okin
g at
long
er te
rm o
utco
mes
and
su
stai
nabi
lity;
and
invo
lvin
g vo
lunt
eers
.

58
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
—O
vera
ll:
Com
mun
ity in
fras
truc
ture
: The
phy
sical
pla
ces a
nd sp
aces
whe
re p
eopl
e ca
n co
me
toge
ther
, for
mal
ly o
r inf
orm
ally,
to in
tera
ct a
nd p
artic
ipat
e in
the
soci
al
life
of th
e co
mm
unity
.Ei
ght i
nter
venti
on c
ateg
orie
s im
pacti
ng c
omm
unity
infr
astr
uctu
re:
com
mun
ity h
ubs;
eve
nts;
loca
l nei
ghbo
urho
od d
esig
n; g
reen
and
blu
e sp
ace;
pl
ace-
mak
ing;
alte
rnati
ve u
se o
f spa
ce; u
rban
rege
nera
tion;
and
com
mun
ity
deve
lopm
ent.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Ps
ycIn
fo, M
EDLI
NE,
CIN
AHL,
So
cial
Pol
icy
and
Prac
tice
(cov
ers
Soci
al C
are
Onl
ine
and
Idox
), So
cial
Sci
ence
s Cita
tion
Inde
x,
Acad
emic
Sea
rch
Com
plet
e,
Leisu
reTo
urism
, Hos
pita
lity
and
Tour
ism C
ompl
ete,
Ave
ry In
dex,
Gr
eenF
iles a
nd U
rban
Stu
dies
Ab
stra
cts.
Grey
lite
ratu
re a
lso se
arch
ed
thro
ugh
Ope
nSig
le.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
All
10 st
udie
s with
ad
oles
cent
s com
bine
d ad
oles
cent
s with
oth
er
popu
latio
ns; a
fter s
crub
bing
thro
ugh
indi
vidu
al
stud
ies n
one
of th
e in
divi
dual
stud
ies s
epar
ated
th
eir a
dole
scen
t-spe
cific
resu
lts e
ither
.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18-y
ear-
olds
or e
quiv
alen
t (s
peci
fy):
NA
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es
that
incl
uded
any
inte
rven
tion
(form
al o
r inf
orm
al) w
hich
w
ere
desig
ned
to im
prov
e, o
r m
ake
bette
r or a
ltern
ative
use
of
, com
mun
ity in
fras
truc
ture
to
impr
ove
wel
lbei
ng. W
hile
fo
cus w
as g
iven
to st
udie
s tha
t in
clud
ed e
vide
nce
for a
dult
popu
latio
ns, c
hild
ren
and
adol
esce
nt fi
ndin
gs w
ere
also
in
clud
ed.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: So
cial
rela
tions
, com
mun
ity w
ellb
eing
or i
ndiv
idua
l wel
lbei
ng o
utco
mes
. Re
view
exc
lusi
on c
riter
ia—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy:
Stud
ies t
hat f
ocus
ed o
n on
ly
olde
r adu
lt or
onl
y ch
ildre
n (a
s de
fined
by
the
stud
y au
thor
s)
wer
e ex
clud
ed. S
tudi
es th
at o
nly
prov
ided
des
crip
tive
info
rmati
on
or c
omm
enta
ry w
ere
excl
uded
.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
-yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify)—
incl
ude
all
but h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: NA
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): W
WCW
Met
hods
Gui
de, P
RISM
A,
PRIS
MA-
Equi
ty g
uide
lines
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or p
eopl
e su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18-
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity, I
nter
pers
onal
) – C
omm
unity
wel
lbei
ng,
soci
al re
latio
ns S
peci
fy o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s mea
sure
d:
Setti
ng(s
): Co
untr
y(ie
s): M
ostly
USA
; UK,
Aus
tral
ia, T
urke
y, Sp
ain,
Sw
itzer
land
, Ger
man
ySt
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s): M
ostly
urb
an
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, sc
hool
, fam
ily, w
ork,
re
crea
tion,
OST
): Co
mm
unity
/Nei
ghbo
rhoo
d

59
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
3. B
ano
s, O
nlin
e P
osi
tive
Inte
rven
tio
ns t
o P
rom
ote
Wel
l-b
eing
and
Res
ilien
ce in
the
Ad
ole
scen
t P
op
ulat
ion:
A N
arra
tive
Rev
iew
. Fro
ntie
rs in
Psy
chia
try
[Int
erne
t]. 2
017
Jan
30 [
cite
d 2
019
July
26]
; 8:
10. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
ww
w.n
cbi.n
lm.n
ih.g
ov/
pub
med
/281
9411
7FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
mid
dle
or h
igh
scho
ol st
uden
tsDa
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: 2
000-
2016
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
48
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed te
ens a
ges 1
3-18
—sp
ecify
by
stud
y if
auth
or d
oesn
’t ag
greg
ate
by re
leva
nt a
ge g
roup
: 12-
18
year
old
s (M
anic
avas
agar
et a
l., 2
014;
Bur
ckha
rdt e
t al.,
201
5), A
dole
scen
ts
(age
not
defi
ned)
(Red
zic e
t al.,
201
2; R
edzic
et a
l., 2
014)
, 3rd
and
4th
yea
r se
cond
ary
scho
ol st
uden
ts (B
anni
nk e
t al.,
201
4), a
dole
scen
t girl
s age
d 10
-14
(Fan
g &
Sch
inke
, 201
3).
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: ER
IC, P
sycI
NFO
, MED
LIN
E,
SCO
PUS,
Pro
Que
st S
ocio
logi
cal
Abst
ract
s, In
form
it, JS
TOR,
SAG
E,
and
Tayl
or a
nd F
ranc
is O
nlin
e.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: In
gen
eral
all
stud
ies s
how
ed
positi
ve re
sults
, dec
reas
ing
anxi
ety
and
depr
essio
n sc
ores
, and
incr
easin
g w
ell-b
eing
.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: I
n th
is re
view
, no
syst
em
uses
mob
ile p
hone
reso
urce
s to
carr
y ou
t th
e in
terv
entio
ns a
nd n
urtu
re in
terp
erso
nal
rela
tions
hips
. How
ever
, sin
ce sm
artp
hone
s or
simila
r dev
ices
wer
e no
t con
sider
ed a
s key
wor
ds
it is
poss
ible
that
som
e sy
stem
s wer
e no
t de
tect
ed.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
—O
vera
ll: P
ositi
ve te
chno
logy
/inte
rnet
-bas
ed
positi
ve te
chno
logy
; pos
itive
inte
rven
tions
del
iver
ed o
ver t
he In
tern
et a
s eff
ectiv
e an
d su
stai
nabl
e he
alth
pro
moti
on to
ols;
all
stud
ies u
sed
a w
ebsit
e to
del
iver
the
PPIs
, one
stud
y al
so u
sed
soci
al n
etw
ork
(Fac
eboo
k) a
nd e
mai
l, an
d an
othe
r one
also
use
d te
xt m
essa
ges r
emin
ders
. PPI
s are
exe
rcise
s (e.
g.,
coun
ting
your
ble
ssin
gs, p
racti
cing
kin
dnes
s, e
xpre
ssin
g gr
atitu
de, u
sing
pers
onal
stre
ngth
s, e
tc.),
whi
ch h
ave
dem
onst
rate
d em
piric
ally
to in
crea
se
positi
ve e
moti
ons,
satis
facti
on w
ith li
fe, o
r oth
er p
ositi
ve st
ates
.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18-y
ear-
olds
or e
quiv
alen
t (s
peci
fy):
Bite
Bac
k pr
ogra
m (M
anic
avas
agar
et a
l., 2
014;
Bur
ckha
rdt e
t al.,
20
15),
InJo
y (R
edzic
et a
l., 2
012;
Red
zic e
t al.,
201
4), E
-hea
lth4U
th (B
anni
nk
et a
l., 2
014)
, Mot
her-D
augh
ter P
reve
ntion
Pro
gram
(Fan
g &
Sch
inke
, 201
3).
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es
that
wer
e in
clud
ed 1
) foc
used
on
pro
ving
the
effica
cy o
f an
onlin
e PP
I to
prom
ote
wel
l-bei
ng
and
resil
ienc
e in
ado
lesc
ent
popu
latio
n; 2
) wer
e pu
blish
ed
until
Apr
il 20
16; a
nd 3
) wer
e ra
ndom
ized
cont
rolle
d tr
ials
(RCT
s).
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: w
ell-b
eing
and
resil
ienc
e, a
nxie
ty a
nd d
epre
ssio
n sc
ores
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus
on st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Stu
dies
th
at o
nly
invo
lved
prim
ary/
elem
enta
ry sc
hool
stud
ents
or
wer
e co
ncer
ned
with
topi
cs
such
as t
each
er w
ellb
eing
or
the
wor
k of
scho
ol c
ouns
ello
rs,
psyc
holo
gist
s, o
r psy
chia
trist
s w
ere
excl
uded
. Stu
dies
that
on
ly in
volv
ed c
onst
ruct
s suc
h as
ph
ysic
al sc
hool
env
ironm
ents
, cl
assr
oom
-leve
l clim
ates
, hom
e or
fam
ily e
nviro
nmen
ts, h
ealth
lit
erac
y, va
lues
or r
elig
ious
ed
ucati
on, a
nd p
hysic
al h
ealth
w
ere
also
exc
lude
d.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify)—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: dep
ress
ion
sym
ptom
s, st
ress
, anx
iety
sy
mpt
oms,
tota
l sym
ptom
scor
es, w
ell-b
eing
(Man
icav
asag
ar e
t al.,
201
4;
Burc
khar
dt e
t al.,
201
5), c
opin
g an
d em
otion
regu
latio
n, d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms,
eng
agem
ent (
Redz
ic e
t al.,
201
2), s
ocia
l and
lear
ning
dom
ains
, en
gage
men
t qua
lity
of in
terv
entio
n (h
elpf
ulne
ss, f
un, i
nter
estin
g) (R
edzic
et
al.,
2014
), he
alth
-rel
ated
qua
lity
of li
fe, c
ondo
m u
se d
urin
g in
terc
ours
e, d
rug
use,
men
tal h
ealth
stat
us (B
anni
nk e
t al.,
201
4), m
othe
r-dau
ghte
r clo
sene
ss,
mot
her-d
augh
ter c
omm
unic
ation
, mat
erna
l mon
itorin
g, p
aren
tal r
ules
aga
inst
su
bsta
nce
use,
self-
effica
cy, r
efus
al sk
ills,
inte
ntion
of u
sing
subs
tanc
es in
the
futu
re, d
epre
ssiv
e m
ood,
bod
y es
teem
, sub
stan
ce u
se n
orm
ative
bel
iefs
(Fan
g &
Sch
inke
, 201
3).
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A

60
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or p
eopl
e su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity, I
nter
pers
onal
) – S
peci
fy o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s mea
sure
d: N
/A
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
-bas
ed, O
nlin
eCo
untr
y(ie
s): U
S, A
ustr
alia
, Net
herla
nds
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol, f
amily
, wor
k,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Indi
vidu
al
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Man
icav
asag
ar e
t al.,
201
412
-18
year
s of a
geBi
te B
ack
prog
ram
Bite
Bac
k pa
rtici
pant
s with
hig
h le
vels
of
adhe
renc
e ha
d sig
nific
ant d
ecre
ases
in
depr
essio
n an
d st
ress
and
impr
ovem
ents
in w
ell-
bein
g w
hen
com
pare
d to
con
trol
gro
up. B
ite B
ack
parti
cipa
nts w
ho v
isite
d th
e sit
e m
ore
freq
uent
ly
had
signi
fican
t dec
reas
es in
dep
ress
ion
and
anxi
ety
and
impr
ovem
ents
in w
ell-b
eing
co
mpa
red
to c
ontr
ol g
roup
.
Burc
khar
dt e
t al.,
201
512
-18
year
s of a
geBi
te B
ack
prog
ram
(sch
ool)
Both
con
ditio
ns sa
w re
ducti
ons i
n de
pres
sion,
st
ress
, and
tota
l sym
ptom
scor
es w
ithou
t an
y sig
nific
ant d
iffer
ence
s or s
igni
fican
t im
prov
emen
ts in
life
satis
facti
on sc
ores
pos
t in
terv
entio
n.
Redz
ic e
t al.,
201
2Ad
oles
cent
s (ag
e no
t defi
ned)
InJo
yIn
Joy
show
ed g
ood
but s
mal
l effe
cts o
n co
ping
an
d em
otion
regu
latio
n, a
nd le
ss in
crea
ses i
n th
e pr
ogre
ssio
n of
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s in
stud
ents
w
ith lo
w-r
isk o
f dep
ress
ion.
No
signi
fican
t effe
cts
on d
ecre
asin
g de
pres
sive
sym
ptom
s in
stud
ents
at
hig
h-ris
k of
dep
ress
ion.
Sig
nific
ant d
iffer
ence
s in
eng
agem
ent w
hen
com
pare
d to
con
trol
gro
up.
Redz
ic e
t al.,
201
4Ad
oles
cent
s (ag
e no
t defi
ned)
InJo
yRe
vise
d In
Joy
was
rate
d hi
gher
on
the
targ
eted
so
cial
lear
ning
dom
ains
and
as s
igni
fican
tly m
ore
enga
ging
(i.e
., he
lpfu
l, in
tere
sting
, fun
)
Bann
ink
et a
l., 2
014
3rd- a
nd 4
th-y
ear s
econ
dary
scho
ol
stud
ents
E-he
alth
4Uth
Com
pare
d to
the
cont
rol g
roup
, the
E-h
ealth
4Uth
in
terv
entio
n gr
oup
show
ed m
inor
pos
itive
resu
lts
in h
ealth
-rel
ated
qua
lity
of li
fe a
nd c
ondo
m
use
durin
g in
terc
ours
e am
ong
adol
esce
nts o
f Du
tch
ethn
icity
. E-h
ealth
4Uth
and
con
sulta
tion
inte
rven
tion
grou
p sh
owed
min
or p
ositi
ve re
sults
in
the
men
tal h
ealth
stat
us o
f ado
lesc
ents
, but
a
nega
tive
effec
t on
drug
use
in b
oys.
Fang
& S
chin
ke, 2
013
Adol
esce
nt g
irls a
ged
10-1
4M
othe
r-Dau
ghte
r Pre
venti
on P
rogr
amCo
mpa
red
to th
e co
ntro
l gro
up, i
nter
venti
on
girls
repo
rted
hig
her l
evel
s of m
othe
r-da
ught
er c
lose
ness
, gre
ater
mot
her-d
augh
ter
com
mun
icati
on, m
ore
mat
erna
l mon
itorin
g, a
nd
enha
nced
par
enta
l rul
es a
gain
st su
bsta
nce
use
at 2
yea
r fol
low
up.
Inte
rven
tion
arm
girl
s also
re
port
ed st
rong
er se
lf-effi
cacy
, gre
ater
refu
sal
skill
s, a
nd lo
wer
inte
ntion
of u
sing
subs
tanc
es
in th
e fu
ture
. Fur
ther
mor
e th
ey re
port
ed
signi
fican
tly fe
wer
inst
ance
s of u
sing
alco
hol,
mar
ijuan
a, a
nd p
resc
riptio
n dr
ugs f
or n
on-
med
ical
pur
pose
s.

61
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
4. B
arry
MM
, Cla
rke
AM
, Mo
rrea
le S
E, F
ield
CA
. A R
evie
w o
f th
e E
vid
ence
on
the
Eff
ects
of
Co
mm
unit
y-b
ased
Pro
gra
ms
on
Youn
g P
eop
le’s
So
cial
and
Em
oti
ona
l Ski
lls D
evel
op
men
t. A
do
lesc
ent
Res
earc
h R
evie
w
[Int
erne
t]. 2
018
Mar
ch [
cite
d 2
019
July
26]
; 3(1
):13-
27. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
link.
spri
nger
.co
m/a
rtic
le/1
0.10
07/s
4089
4-01
7-00
55-2
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
You
th
aged
13-
19 y
ears
Da
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: 2
004-
2014
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
14
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to
HS
aged
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gr
oup:
(see
tabl
e)
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: th
ere
are
a sm
all b
ut g
row
ing
num
ber o
f rob
ust s
tudi
es in
the
UK
prov
idin
g ev
iden
ce o
f the
effe
ctive
ness
of c
omm
unity
-ba
sed
prog
ram
s th
at d
evel
op y
oung
peo
ple’
s so
cial
and
em
otion
al s
kills
. The
qua
lity
of th
e da
ta c
olle
ction
met
hods
use
d fo
r ass
essi
ng
the
impa
ct o
f int
erve
ntion
s on
soc
ial a
nd
emoti
onal
wel
lbei
ng o
utco
mes
was
iden
tified
as
a m
etho
dolo
gica
l wea
knes
s. T
he e
vide
nce
from
inte
rven
tions
aim
ed a
t inc
reas
ing
soci
al
and
emoti
onal
ski
lls th
roug
h cr
eativ
e ar
ts a
nd
spor
ts-b
ased
acti
vitie
s in
the
UK
is c
urre
ntly
qu
ite li
mite
d du
e to
a la
ck o
f rob
ust s
tudy
de-
sign
s an
d po
or q
ualit
y an
alys
is.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: D
ue to
the
hete
roge
neity
of t
he e
valu
ation
st
udie
s id
entifi
ed, a
qua
ntita
tive
synt
hesi
s of t
he fi
ndin
gs fr
om
the
inte
rven
tion
stud
ies
revi
ewed
was
not
pos
sibl
e. T
here
fore
, th
e re
view
find
ings
are
bas
ed o
n a
narr
ative
synt
hesi
s, w
hich
do
es n
ot h
ave
the
stati
stica
l pow
er to
exa
min
e pr
ogra
m e
ffect
si
zes.
Wea
k st
udy
qual
ity.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
—O
vera
ll: S
ocia
l Ac
tion
inte
rven
tions
, You
th A
rts a
nd S
port
s in
terv
entio
ns, a
nd M
ento
ring
inte
rven
tions
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: EM
BASE
, Psy
cIN
FO, S
COPU
S,
Appl
ied
Soci
al S
cien
ce In
dex
and
Abst
ract
s, B
ritish
Edu
catio
n In
dex.
A to
tal o
f 24
educ
ation
dat
abas
es a
nd 8
pub
lic h
ealth
da
taba
ses w
ere
also
sear
ched
. Add
ition
al so
urce
s inc
lude
d go
ogle
Sch
olar
and
refe
renc
e lis
ts o
f rel
evan
t arti
cles
, boo
k ch
apte
rs, a
nd re
view
. Gre
y lit
erat
ure
data
base
s inc
ludi
ng Z
etoc
, ET
HOS,
Pro
Que
st a
nd G
oogl
e.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or e
quiv
alen
t (sp
ecify
): (s
ee ta
ble)
Re
view
incl
usio
n cr
iteria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: St
udie
s inc
lude
d in
this
revi
ew m
ust i
nvol
ve in
terv
entio
ns th
at
1) a
ddre
ss o
ne o
r mor
e so
cial
and
em
otion
al sk
ills a
s out
lined
by
CAS
EL a
nd th
e Yo
ung
Foun
datio
n; 2
) are
impl
emen
ted
in a
co
mm
unity
-bas
ed se
tting
in th
e U
K; a
nd 3
) are
impl
emen
ted
as
a un
iver
sal i
nter
venti
on w
ith y
outh
in th
e ge
nera
l pop
ulati
on.
In a
dditi
on, p
rogr
ams h
ad to
em
ploy
a ra
ndom
ized
cont
rolle
d tr
ial (
RCT)
or q
uasi-
expe
rimen
tal d
esig
n (Q
ED) a
nd in
clud
e at
le
ast o
ne m
easu
re o
f a so
cial
or e
moti
onal
out
com
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut
high
light
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: cat
egor
ies o
f ou
tcom
es c
oded
into
: Em
otion
al S
kills
(ES)
; So
cial
Ski
lls (S
S); a
nd E
duca
tiona
l, He
alth
, and
So
cial
(EHS
) Out
com
es.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: In
terv
entio
n im
plem
ente
d w
ith y
outh
who
had
a d
iagn
osed
m
enta
l, be
havi
oral
, or p
hysic
al d
isord
er w
ere
not e
ligib
le fo
r in
clus
ion.
Oth
erw
ise, e
xclu
sion
from
the
revi
ew w
as b
ased
on
a fa
ilure
to m
eet t
he in
clus
ion
crite
ria d
etai
led
abov
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r eq
uiva
lent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht
PSEW
B ou
tcom
es: (
see
tabl
e)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
an
d/or
peo
ple
surr
ound
ing
13-1
8 ye
ar-o
lds
(Nati
on, C
omm
unity
, Int
erpe
rson
al) –
Spe
cify
ou
tcom
e an
d fo
r who
m/w
hat i
t is m
easu
red:
(s
ee ta
ble)
Setti
ng(s
): co
mm
unity
-bas
ed p
rogr
ams
Coun
try(
ies)
: UK
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er
coun
trie
s):
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/ne
ighb
orho
od, s
choo
l, fa
mily
, wor
k, re
crea
tion,
O
ST):
Com
mun
ity

62
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Boot
h, 2
014
15-1
7N
ation
al C
itize
n Se
rvic
eEm
otion
al S
kills
(ES)
: Sig
nific
ant i
mpr
ovem
ent i
n co
nfide
nce,
ha
ppin
ess,
life
satis
facti
on, r
ating
of “
life
is w
orth
whi
le”,
self-
repo
rted
anx
iety
, res
ilien
ce, s
elf-e
ffica
cy, a
nd p
robl
em-s
olvi
ng sk
ills.
So
cial
Ski
lls (S
S): S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n so
cial
trus
t, so
cial
ca
pita
l, atti
tude
to o
ther
s fro
m d
iffer
ence
bac
kgro
unds
, lea
ders
hip,
te
am w
ork,
soci
al c
ompe
tenc
e, c
omm
unic
ation
. Ed
ucati
onal
, Hea
lth, a
nd S
ocia
l out
com
es (E
HS):
Sign
ifica
nt p
ositi
ve
impa
ct o
n in
tere
st in
edu
catio
n, a
ttitu
de to
war
d so
cial
mix
ing
in lo
cal a
rea,
com
mun
ity a
war
enes
s, c
omm
unity
eng
agem
ent,
volu
ntee
ring,
inte
ntion
to v
ote,
edu
catio
n an
d ca
reer
asp
iratio
ns,
alco
hol a
nd sm
okin
g co
nsum
ption
.
Mod
erat
e qu
ality
ra
ting.
Kirk
man
, 201
614
-25
year
sVo
lunt
ary
Actio
n w
ithin
Ken
t, Yo
uth
Soci
al A
ction
Pr
ojec
tES
: Sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve im
pact
on
ratin
g of
“lif
e is
wor
thw
hile
”, se
lf-re
port
ed a
nxie
ty, a
nd e
mpa
thy.
No
signi
fican
t im
pact
on
prob
lem
-so
lvin
g or
grit
.SS
: Sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve im
pact
on
coop
erati
on, s
ense
of c
omm
unity
, an
d so
cial
trus
t.EH
S: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n co
mm
unity
invo
lvem
ent a
nd
will
ingn
ess t
o vo
lunt
eer.
No
signi
fican
t im
pact
on
attitu
des t
owar
ds
educ
ation
.
Mod
erat
e qu
ality
ra
ting.
Kirk
man
, 201
616
-19
year
sEn
visio
nES
: Sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve im
pact
on
satis
facti
on w
ith li
fe, r
ating
of “
life
is w
orth
whi
le”,
empa
thy,
prob
lem
-sol
ving
skill
s, a
nd g
rit.
SS: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n co
oper
ation
and
sens
e of
co
mm
unity
. EH
S: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n co
mm
unity
invo
lvem
ent,
attitu
des t
owar
ds e
duca
tion,
will
ingn
ess t
o vo
lunt
eer,
and
empl
oyab
ility
skill
s.
Mod
erat
e qu
ality
ra
ting.
The
RKT
Ltd.
, 201
58-
25 y
ears
Lond
on Y
outh
Ath
an 3
1 Pr
ogra
mES
: No
signi
fican
t im
pact
on
subj
ectiv
e w
ellb
eing
.W
eak
qual
ity
ratin
g.
Fam
ily K
ids a
nd Y
outh
, 201
511
-18
year
sYo
uth
Uni
ted,
You
th S
ocia
l Acti
on Jo
urne
y Fu
ndES
: Sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve im
pact
of e
mpa
thy
and
crea
tivity
(fem
ales
), an
d re
silie
nce.
No
signi
fican
t im
pact
on
confi
denc
e, m
anag
ing
feel
ings
, pro
blem
-sol
ving
, wel
lbei
ng.
SS: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n co
mm
unic
ation
. No
signi
fican
t im
pact
on
plan
ning
. EH
S: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n co
mm
unity
eng
agem
ent.
Wea
k qu
ality
ra
ting.
Gora
rd, 2
016
13-1
4 ye
ars
Yout
h U
nite
d, Y
outh
Soc
ial A
ction
Tria
lsES
: Sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve im
pact
on
confi
denc
e.
SS: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n te
am w
ork
and
will
ingn
ess t
o he
lp
othe
r. EH
S: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n pr
ofes
siona
l asp
iratio
n an
d ci
vic
enga
gem
ent.
Sign
ifica
nt n
egati
ve e
ffect
on
acad
emic
atta
inm
ent.
Mod
erat
e qu
ality
ra
ting.
Gree
nhou
se, 2
012
8-18
yea
rsGr
eenh
ouse
(com
mun
ity sp
orts
inte
rven
tion)
ES: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n se
lf-co
nfide
nce,
cop
ing
skill
s,
happ
ines
s, a
nd m
otiva
tion.
No
signi
fican
t im
pact
on
self-
effica
cy.
SS: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n so
cial
com
pete
nce
and
soci
al
rela
tions
hips
.EH
S: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n co
mm
unity
eng
agem
ent.
No
signi
fican
t im
pact
on
heal
th sc
ore
and
acad
emic
ach
ieve
men
t.
Wea
k qu
ality
ra
ting.
Mea
de, 2
008
15-2
5 ye
ars
Getti
ng it
Toge
ther
ES: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n co
nfide
nce
and
copi
ng sk
ills.
SS
: Sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve im
pact
on
com
mun
icati
on a
nd fa
cilit
ation
sk
ills,
and
rela
tions
hips
skill
s.
Wea
k qu
ality
ra
ting.
Cent
re fo
r Ana
lysis
of Y
outh
Tra
nsiti
ons,
201
39-
13 y
ears
Confl
ict R
esol
ution
Unc
utSS
: Sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve im
pact
on
confl
ict r
esol
ution
skill
s.
EHS:
Sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve im
pact
on
attitu
des a
nd b
ehav
iors
in
rela
tion
to in
volv
emen
t in
knife
crim
e.
Wea
k qu
ality
ra
ting.
Shin
er, 2
004
15-1
9 ye
ars
Men
torin
g Pl
usES
: Sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve im
pact
on
self-
confi
denc
e, d
ecisi
on-m
akin
g,
and
setti
ng g
oals.
No
signi
fican
t im
pact
on
self-
este
em.
SS: S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
impa
ct o
n so
cial
izatio
n. N
o sig
nific
ant i
mpa
ct
on re
latio
nshi
ps.
EHS:
Sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve im
pact
on
excl
usio
n fr
om sc
hool
/tru
antin
g ra
tes.
No
signi
fican
t im
pact
on
subs
tanc
e m
isuse
or l
evel
s of
offen
ding
.
Wea
k qu
ality
ra
ting.

63
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
5. B
asto
unis
A, C
alla
gha
n P,
Ban
erje
e A
, Mic
hail
M. T
he e
ffec
tive
ness
of
the
Pen
n R
esili
ency
Pro
gra
mm
e (P
RP
) and
its
adap
ted
ver
sio
ns in
red
ucin
g d
epre
ssio
n an
d a
nxie
ty a
nd im
pro
ving
ex
pla
nato
ry s
tyle
: A s
yste
mat
ic r
evie
w a
nd m
eta-
anal
ysis
. Jo
urna
l of
Ad
ole
scen
ce [
Inte
rnet
]. 2
016
Oct
[ci
ted
201
9 Ju
ly 2
6]; 5
2:37
-48.
Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/2
7494
740
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
stud
ents
ag
ed 8
–17
year
sDa
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: 1
974-
2015
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
9Se
vera
l lim
itatio
ns o
f the
cur
rent
met
a-an
alys
is sh
ould
be
ack
now
ledg
ed. F
irst,
the
limite
d nu
mbe
r of s
tudi
es
whi
ch m
et th
e in
clus
ion
crite
ria le
d to
und
erpo
wer
ed
anal
ysis
for t
he se
cond
ary
outc
omes
and
two
grou
ps
in su
bgro
up a
naly
ses.
Giv
en th
e sc
arci
ty o
f dat
a,
mea
n di
ffere
nces
for o
ne o
f the
seco
ndar
y ou
tcom
es
wer
e no
t agg
rega
ted.
Sec
ond,
this
met
a-an
alys
is as
sess
ed th
e eff
ectiv
enes
s of u
nive
rsal
PRP
and
its
deriv
ative
s onl
y at
pos
t-int
erve
ntion
, whe
reas
ther
e is
evid
ence
that
som
e eff
ects
of P
RP m
ay e
mer
ge la
ter
(Bru
nwas
ser e
t al.,
200
9, Q
uayl
e et
al.,
200
1). T
hird
, eff
ect s
izes (
ESs)
wer
e ob
tain
ed a
ssum
ing
norm
ality
of
outc
ome
data
dist
ributi
on, w
here
as in
som
e st
udie
s ou
tcom
e da
ta d
istrib
ution
was
pos
itive
ly sk
ewed
(C
hapl
in e
t al.,
200
6). T
his r
evie
w c
onfe
rs h
owev
er,
rese
arch
and
pra
ctica
l ben
efits
. Firs
t, th
is re
view
is
base
d on
a p
re-s
peci
fied
prot
ocol
. Sec
ond,
this
met
a-an
alys
is pr
ovid
es e
vide
nce
rega
rdin
g PR
P’s s
uita
bilit
y fo
r lar
ge sc
ale
roll-
out.
Third
, thi
s rev
iew
app
lied
rigid
qu
ality
crit
eria
, red
ucin
g th
e m
etho
dolo
gica
l div
ersit
y of
the
incl
uded
stud
ies.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed te
ens a
ges 1
3-18
—sp
ecify
by
stud
y if
auth
or
does
n’t a
ggre
gate
by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: K
indt
et a
l. (2
014)
: 13.
42, T
ak e
t al.
(201
5): 1
3.91
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: T
here
was
no
evid
ence
that
uni
vers
al
PRP
or it
s der
ivati
ves r
educ
e de
pres
sion
or a
nxie
ty a
nd
impr
ove
expl
anat
ory
styl
e at
pos
t-int
erve
ntion
; the
refo
re,
the
larg
e sc
ale
roll-
out o
f uni
vers
al P
RP –
in it
s cur
rent
fo
rm- c
anno
t be
reco
mm
ende
d.
Inte
rven
tion
Ove
rall:
Onl
y sc
hool
-bas
ed, u
nive
rsal
ap
plic
ation
s of P
RP1 an
d its
der
ivati
ves w
ere
incl
uded
in
this
revi
ew.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Coc
hran
e Ce
ntra
l Reg
ister
of
Con
trol
led
Tria
ls (C
ENTR
AL),
CIN
AHL
(Cum
ulati
ve In
dex
to N
ursin
g an
d Al
lied
Heal
th L
itera
ture
), EM
BASE
, MED
LIN
E (in
clud
ing
PubM
ed),
Psyc
INFO
, SCI
(Sci
ence
Cita
tion
Inde
x), S
cien
ce D
irect
, Sco
pus.
Onl
ine
data
base
s of g
rey
liter
atur
e, w
hich
wer
e se
arch
ed, w
ere:
Clin
ical
Tria
ls htt
p://
clin
ical
tria
ls.go
v, an
d IS
RCTN
Reg
ister
.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
In O
VK, g
reat
er m
otiva
tion
and
self-
repo
rted
pos
itive
atm
osph
ere
in th
e cl
assr
oom
pr
edic
ted
depr
essiv
e sy
mpt
oms r
educ
tion.
Inte
rven
tion
exam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r eq
uiva
lent
(spe
cify
): O
VK, o
r ‘O
p Vo
lle K
rach
t2 , for
bo
th K
indt
et a
l. (2
014)
, Tak
et a
l. (2
015)
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria: A
ll pu
blish
ed ra
ndom
ised
cont
rolle
d tr
ials
(RCT
s) a
nd c
lust
er R
CTs,
testi
ng th
e eff
ectiv
enes
s of t
he u
nive
rsal
app
licati
on o
f sch
ool-b
ased
PR
P or
any
of i
ts d
eriv
ative
s, ta
rgeti
ng d
epre
ssio
n an
d (o
r)
any
of th
e se
cond
ary
outc
omes
of i
nter
est,
com
pare
d w
ith
any
type
of c
ontr
ol c
ondi
tion
(acti
ve c
ontr
ol su
ch a
s hea
lth
man
agem
ent s
essio
ns, n
on-in
terv
entio
n su
ch a
s usu
al
lear
ning
sess
ions
and
wai
ting-
list)
, in
Engl
ish, w
ere
elig
ible
fo
r inc
lusio
n.
Out
com
es o
vera
ll—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: D
epre
ssio
n, a
nxie
ty.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
: Stu
dies
wer
e ex
clud
ed, i
f the
y w
ere
desc
ribin
g th
e ev
alua
tion
of ta
rget
ed (s
elec
tive
or
indi
cate
d) a
pplic
ation
s of P
RP a
nd it
s der
ivati
ves;
they
w
ere
not s
choo
l-bas
ed o
r wer
e no
t ass
essin
g an
y of
the
a pr
iori
sele
cted
out
com
es o
f int
eres
t. Le
ad a
utho
rs w
ere
cont
acte
d w
hen
ther
e w
ere
not e
noug
h de
tails
abo
ut
thei
r int
erve
ntion
s’ c
once
ptua
l fide
lity
with
PRP
. Afte
r tw
o un
succ
essf
ul c
onta
ct-a
ttem
pts,
the
stud
ies w
ere
excl
uded
. In
four
aut
hors
, who
wer
e co
ntac
ted,
two
of th
em d
id n
ot
resp
ond
and
thei
r stu
dies
wer
e ex
clud
ed.
Out
com
es fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or e
quiv
alen
t (s
peci
fy)—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: De
pres
sion,
Clin
ical
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s, O
VK-
spec
ific
varia
bles
. Anx
iety
, Hop
eles
snes
s, H
appi
ness
, Li
fe sa
tisfa
ction
, Opti
mis
m, C
opin
g, S
elf-e
ffica
cy,
Acad
emic
ach
ieve
men
t, He
alth
-risk
beh
avio
urs,
OVK
-sp
ecifi
c va
riabl
es
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A, C
ochr
ane
Hand
book
Out
com
es fo
r Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peo
ple
surr
ound
ing
13-1
8 ye
ar-o
lds (
Nati
on,
Com
mun
ity, I
nter
pers
onal
) – S
peci
fy o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s mea
sure
d: N
/A
Setti
ng(s
): sc
hool
Co
untr
y(ie
s): A
ustr
alia
, the
Net
herla
nds,
and
U.S
.St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
co
untr
ies)
: N/A
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d,
scho
ol, f
amily
, wor
k, re
crea
tion,
OST
): sc
hool

64
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RM
EA
N A
GE
GR
OU
P IN
STU
DY
INTE
RV
EN
TIO
NO
UTC
OM
EFI
ND
ING
S
Kind
t et a
l. (2
014)
13.4
2O
VKDe
pres
sion:
Clin
ical
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s, O
VK-
spec
ific
varia
bles
No
firm
co
nclu
sions
can
be
dra
wn
abou
t th
e se
lecti
ve
pote
ntial
of t
he
OVK
dep
ress
ion
prev
entio
n pr
ogra
m. I
n its
cu
rren
t for
m, t
he
OVK
pro
gram
sh
ould
not
be
impl
emen
ted
on
a la
rge
scal
e in
th
e na
tura
l setti
ng
for n
on-h
igh-
risk
adol
esce
nts.
Tak
et a
l. (2
015)
13.9
1O
VKDe
pres
sion,
clin
ical
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s: S
econ
dary
ou
tcom
es: A
nxie
ty, H
opel
essn
ess,
Hap
pine
ss, L
ife
satis
facti
on, O
ptim
ism, C
opin
g, S
elf-e
ffica
cy, A
cade
mic
ac
hiev
emen
t, He
alth
-risk
beh
avio
urs,
OVK
-spe
cific
va
riabl
es
OVK
was
not
eff
ectiv
e in
pr
even
ting
depr
essiv
e sy
mpt
oms a
cros
s th
e 2
year
follo
w-
up.

65
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
6. B
erg
er A
T, W
ido
me
R, T
roxe
l WM
. Sch
oo
l Sta
rt T
ime
and
Psy
cho
log
ical
Hea
lth
in A
do
lesc
ents
. Cur
rent
Sle
ep M
edic
ine
Rep
ort
s [I
nter
net]
. 201
8 Ju
n [c
ited
201
9 A
ug 2
3]; 4
(2):1
10-1
17. A
vaila
ble
fr
om
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/3
0349
805
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
stud
ents
in g
rade
K-1
2.
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: No
date
ra
nge
prov
ided
. #
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 8
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed te
ens
ages
13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
re
leva
nt a
ge g
roup
: Hig
h sc
hool
stud
ents
(Wah
lstro
m, 1
998;
W
ahlst
rom
, 200
2; M
artin
et a
l., 2
016)
, 10th
gra
de st
uden
ts (V
edaa
et
al.,
201
2), 8
th a
nd 9
th g
rade
stud
ents
(Per
kins
on-G
loor
et a
l.,
2013
), bo
ardi
ng sc
hool
stud
ents
(Boe
rger
s et a
l., 2
014;
Ow
ens e
t al
., 20
10),
seco
ndar
y sc
hool
stud
ents
(Cha
n et
al.,
201
7).
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s:Al
l fou
r stu
dies
that
incl
uded
dep
ress
ion
and/
or a
nxie
ty a
s out
com
es fo
und
that
stud
ents
in
late
r sta
rting
scho
ols s
how
ed fe
wer
sym
ptom
s of
depr
essio
n th
an st
uden
ts in
ear
lier s
tarti
ng sc
hool
s.Tw
o st
udie
s use
d m
easu
res o
f pos
itive
or n
egati
ve
affec
t; ne
ither
find
ing
signi
fican
t ass
ocia
tions
be
twee
n su
ch m
easu
res a
nd la
ter s
choo
l sta
rt ti
mes
.In
the
maj
ority
of s
tudi
es re
view
ed, l
ater
scho
ol
star
t tim
es w
ere
asso
ciat
ed w
ith g
reat
er a
dole
scen
t ps
ycho
logi
cal h
ealth
. How
ever
, inh
eren
t des
ign
draw
back
s in
the
stud
ies p
reve
nt u
s fro
m c
oncl
udin
g th
at th
ese
asso
ciati
ons a
re c
ausa
l. Th
ere
are
a w
ide
rang
e of
pot
entia
l ben
efits
, bey
ond
men
tal
heal
th, t
hat l
ater
hig
h sc
hool
star
t tim
es o
ffer.
This
enco
urag
ing,
em
erge
nt li
tera
ture
on
dela
yed
star
t tim
es h
as le
d m
any
scho
ol d
istric
ts to
con
sider
ch
ange
s to
thei
r sta
rt ti
mes
.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: L
itera
ture
on
the
subj
ect i
s spa
rse,
and
al
l exi
sting
stud
ies r
evie
wed
had
sign
ifica
nt m
etho
dolo
gica
l lim
itatio
ns. N
one
of th
e lo
ng-t
erm
stud
ies i
denti
fied
incl
uded
a
conc
urre
ntly
mea
sure
d co
ntro
l gro
up, s
o ps
ycho
logi
cal
effec
ts o
f sch
ool s
tart
tim
e co
uld
not b
e se
para
ted
from
se
ason
al o
r sec
ular
var
iatio
n or
impa
ct o
f oth
er p
olic
ies a
nd
inte
rven
tions
on
sleep
and
psy
chol
ogic
al h
ealth
. The
rang
e of
ps
ycho
logi
cal o
utco
mes
that
hav
e be
en e
valu
ated
is in
cred
ibly
na
rrow
.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Lat
er sc
hool
star
t tim
e in
terv
entio
ns.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: O
vid
Med
line,
Psy
cIN
FO, E
RIC
via
EBSC
Oho
st.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equi
vale
nt (s
peci
fy):
8:30
am v
s. 7
:30a
m o
r 7:1
5am
star
t tim
es
(Wah
lstro
m, 1
998)
, 8:4
0am
vs.
7:3
0am
(Wah
lstro
m, 2
002)
, 8:
00am
in D
ecem
ber v
s 8:3
0am
in M
arch
(Ow
ens e
t al.,
201
0),
9:30
am o
n M
onda
y an
d 8:
30am
on
Frid
ay v
s 8:3
0am
on
both
da
ys (V
edaa
et a
l., 2
012)
, 8:0
0am
vs.
7:4
0am
(Per
kins
on-G
loor
et
al.,
2013
), 8:
00am
in N
ovem
ber v
s. 8
:25a
m in
Mar
ch a
nd 8
:00a
m
in M
ay (B
oerg
ers e
t al.,
201
4), 1
:25p
m v
s 7:4
0am
(Mar
tin e
t al.,
20
16),
7:45
am a
t bas
elin
e an
d 8:
00am
at f
ollo
w-u
p vs
. 7:5
5am
at
base
line
and
follo
w-u
p (C
han
et a
l., 2
017)
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es
mus
t be
peer
-rev
iew
ed, i
nclu
de
a K-
12 st
art ti
me
cont
rast
as
the
expo
sure
, and
incl
ude
a ps
ycho
logi
cally
rele
vant
mea
sure
as
an
outc
ome
to b
e in
clud
ed in
th
is re
view
.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Dep
ress
ion
and
anxi
ety
sym
ptom
s, p
ositi
ve o
r ne
gativ
e aff
ect,
and
beha
vior
al h
ealth
.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus
on st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Rev
iew
s w
ere
excl
uded
bas
ed o
n a
failu
re to
m
eet t
he in
clus
ion
crite
ria d
etai
led
abov
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: D
epre
ssiv
e Sy
mpt
om S
core
(Sch
ool S
leep
Hab
its S
urve
y) (W
ahlst
rom
, 199
8;
Wah
lstro
m, 2
002;
Ow
ens e
t al.,
201
0; B
oerg
ers e
t al.,
201
4),
Positi
ve a
nd N
egati
ve A
ffect
Sch
edul
e (P
ANAS
) (Ve
daa
et a
l.,
2012
), Po
sitive
atti
tude
tow
ard
life
(Per
kins
on-G
loor
et a
l.,
2013
), De
tecti
on o
f Alc
ohol
and
Dru
g Pr
oble
ms i
n Ad
oles
cent
s,
Psyc
holo
gica
l Dist
ress
Inde
x of
the
Que
bec
Heal
th S
urve
y (ID
PESQ
) (M
artin
et a
l., 2
016)
, Gen
eral
Hea
lth Q
uesti
onna
ire
(GHQ
-12)
, Str
engt
hs a
nd D
ifficu
lties
Que
stion
naire
(SDQ
) (Ch
an
et a
l., 2
017)
.
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e
.g.,
PRIS
MA,
GRA
DE):
Non
e pr
ovid
ed.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or p
eopl
e su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity, I
nter
pers
onal
) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s mea
sure
d: N
/A
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
sCo
untr
y(ie
s): C
anad
a, H
ong
Kong
, U.S
., Sw
itzer
land
, Nor
way
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
: M
inne
sota
, Rho
de Is
land
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, sc
hool
, fam
ily,
wor
k, re
crea
tion,
OST
): Sc
hool

66
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Wah
lstro
m, 1
998
High
scho
ol st
uden
ts8:
30am
vs.
7:3
0am
or 7
:15a
m st
art ti
mes
High
scho
ol st
uden
ts a
t an
8:30
am st
art ti
me
had
signi
fican
tly
low
er d
epre
ssio
n sc
ore
than
7:1
5am
, non
-sig
nific
antly
low
er
than
7:3
0am
star
t tim
e st
uden
ts.
No
befo
re-a
fter d
ata.
No
adju
stm
ent f
or p
oten
tially
co
nfou
ndin
g va
riabl
es.
Wah
lstro
m, 2
002
High
scho
ol st
uden
ts8:
40am
vs.
7:3
0am
Stud
ents
at 8
:40a
m h
ad si
gnifi
cant
ly lo
wer
dep
ress
ion
scor
es
than
7:3
0am
star
t tim
e st
uden
ts.
Ow
ens,
201
0Bo
ardi
ng sc
hool
stud
ents
8:00
am in
Dec
embe
r vs 8
:30a
m in
Mar
chDe
pres
sion
scor
e an
d pe
rcen
t of s
tude
nts r
ating
self
“som
ewha
t unh
appy
” or
“som
ewha
t dep
ress
ed”
low
er in
M
arch
com
pare
d to
Dec
embe
r.
(Unc
ontr
olle
d be
fore
-afte
r st
udy)
Veda
a, 2
012
10th
gra
de st
uden
ts9:
30am
on
Mon
day
and
8:30
am o
n Fr
iday
vs 8
:30a
m
on b
oth
days
.De
laye
d sc
hool
star
t tim
e ha
d no
effe
ct o
n se
lf-re
port
ed
positi
ve o
r neg
ative
affe
ct.
Onl
y on
e da
y of
cha
nged
sc
hool
star
t tim
e pe
r wee
k.
Perk
inso
n-Gl
oor,
2013
8th a
nd 9
th g
rade
stud
ents
8:00
am v
s. 7
:40a
mN
o di
ffere
nces
in p
ositi
ve a
ttitu
de to
war
d lif
e in
mal
e or
fe
mal
e st
uden
ts.
Two-
item
mea
sure
of
positi
ve a
ttitu
de to
war
d lif
e m
ay n
ot b
e va
lid. V
ery
unba
lanc
ed c
ompa
rison
w
ith le
ss th
an 1
3% o
f st
uden
ts in
late
r-sta
rting
sc
hool
s.
Boer
gers
, 201
4Bo
ardi
ng sc
hool
stud
ents
8:00
am in
Nov
embe
r vs.
8:2
5am
in M
arch
and
8:0
0am
in
May
Depr
essio
n sc
ore
and
perc
ent o
f stu
dent
s rati
ng se
lf “s
omew
hat u
nhap
py”
or “s
omew
hat d
epre
ssed
” lo
wer
in
Mar
ch c
ompa
red
to N
ovem
ber.
(Unc
ontr
olle
d be
fore
-afte
r st
udy)
Tim
e 3
resu
lts a
re
not p
rese
nted
for v
aria
bles
ot
her t
han
sleep
dur
ation
.
Mar
tin, 2
016
High
scho
ol st
uden
ts1:
25pm
vs 7
:40a
mN
o sig
nific
ant d
iffer
ence
in a
lcoh
ol u
se b
etw
een
mor
ning
-sta
r an
d aft
erno
on-s
tart
stud
ents
. No
signi
fican
t diff
eren
ce in
ps
ycho
logi
cal d
istre
ss b
etw
een
mor
ning
-sta
rt a
nd a
ftern
oon-
star
t stu
dent
s.
Very
unu
sual
star
t tim
e.
Chan
, 201
7Se
cond
ary
stud
ents
7:45
am a
t bas
elin
e an
d 8:
00am
at f
ollo
w-u
p vs
. 7:
55am
at b
asel
ine
and
follo
w-u
pIm
prov
emen
t on
men
tal h
ealth
, pro
soci
al b
ehav
ior e
moti
onal
sy
mpt
oms,
hyp
erac
tive/
inatt
entio
n, p
eer r
elati
onsh
ip
prob
lem
s, to
tal d
ifficu
lties
in in
terv
entio
n sc
hool
com
pare
d to
co
mpa
rison
scho
ol.
Data
col
lecti
on a
t in
terv
entio
n an
d co
mpa
rison
scho
ols w
as a
ha
lf-ye
ar a
part
(pos
sible
se
ason
al e
ffect
s).

67
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
7. B
urru
s B
B, K
rieg
er K
, Rut
led
ge
R, R
abre
A, A
xels
on
S, M
iller
A, e
t al
. Bui
ldin
g b
rid
ges
to
a b
rig
hter
to
mo
rro
w: A
sys
tem
atic
evi
den
ce r
evie
w o
f in
terv
enti
ons
tha
t p
rep
ares
ad
ole
scen
ts f
or
adul
tho
od
. Am
eric
an J
our
nal o
f P
ublic
Hea
lth
[Int
erne
t]. 2
018
Feb
[ci
ted
201
9 Ju
ly 2
6]; 1
08(S
1):S
25-S
31. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
ww
w.n
cbi.n
lm.n
ih.g
ov/
pub
med
/294
4356
1FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
10-
18Da
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: 1
999-
2016
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
45
As n
oted
by
auth
or: T
he s
earc
h us
ed a
n ex
tens
ive
arra
y of
term
s an
d to
pics
to id
entif
y ad
ulth
ood
prep
arati
on to
pics
and
may
hav
e fa
iled
to p
ick
up
rele
vant
stu
dies
bec
ause
the
term
s di
d no
t fal
l w
ithin
the
spec
ified
sea
rch
crite
ria; S
ever
al o
f the
st
udie
s th
at m
et th
e in
clus
ion
crite
ria u
sed
quas
i-ex
perim
enta
l stu
dy d
esig
ns, h
ad u
nbal
ance
d ba
selin
e ch
arac
teris
tics
acro
ss tr
eatm
ent g
roup
s, h
ad h
igh
attriti
on ra
tes,
or h
ad u
nmea
sure
d co
nfou
ndin
g,
so th
ere
wer
e fe
wer
hig
h-qu
ality
stu
dies
on
whi
ch
to m
ake
confi
dent
con
clus
ions
; The
stu
dies
var
ied
exte
nsiv
ely
in th
e ex
tent
to w
hich
they
repo
rted
eff
ect s
ize, m
akin
g it
diffi
cult
to d
raw
con
clus
ions
ab
out t
he e
ffect
size
s ac
ross
the
broa
der g
roup
of
stud
ies.
Qua
lity
of e
vide
nce
varie
d: m
oder
ate-
qual
ity
(23
stud
ies)
, 7 h
igh-
qual
ity, 6
low
- qua
lity
Mos
t stu
dies
app
ear
to d
eal w
ith m
iddl
e sc
hool
pre
-ado
lesc
ents
(1
0-12
/13
year
old
s) o
r de
alt w
ith s
ubst
ance
us
e or
sex
ual h
ealth
(not
PS
EWB)
.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: (
see
tabl
e)
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: A
dole
scen
t dev
elop
men
t em
erge
d as
the
mos
t fre
quen
tly ta
rget
ed to
pic;
52.
8% o
f the
st
udie
s ta
rget
ed th
is to
pic.
Hea
lthy
life
skill
s w
as
the
seco
nd m
ost f
requ
ently
targ
eted
topi
c; 4
7.2%
of
stu
dies
incl
uded
pro
gram
ele
men
ts ta
rgeti
ng th
is
topi
c. 2
7 st
udie
s (7
5%) r
epor
ted
a si
gnifi
cant
effe
ct
on th
e sp
ecifi
ed a
dulth
ood
prep
arati
on b
ehav
iora
l ou
tcom
es, i
nclu
ding
hea
lthy
life
skill
s (n
= 2
), se
xual
ris
k be
havi
ors
(n =
6),
educ
ation
al a
nd c
aree
r suc
cess
(n
= 7
), he
alth
y re
latio
nshi
ps (n
= 4
), fin
anci
al li
tera
cy
(n =
1),
pare
nt–c
hild
com
mun
icati
on (n
= 6
), an
d ad
oles
cent
dev
elop
men
t (n
= 1)
. Beh
avio
ral o
utco
mes
sh
owin
g si
gnifi
cant
effe
cts
for r
isk
beha
vior
s in
clud
e al
coho
l, to
bacc
o, a
nd o
ther
dru
g us
e (n
= 9
) and
risk
y se
xual
beh
avio
rs (n
= 6
).
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Adu
lthoo
d pr
epar
a-tio
n tr
aini
ng fo
r ado
lesc
ents
that
focu
sed
on (1
) ado
lesc
ent
deve
lopm
ent,
(2) e
duca
tiona
l and
car
eer s
ucce
ss, (
3)
finan
cial
lite
racy
, (4)
hea
lthy
life
skill
s, (5
) hea
lthy
rela
tion-
ship
s, a
nd
(6) p
aren
t–ch
ild c
omm
unic
ation
. Out
com
e: B
ehav
iora
l ou
tcom
es in
clud
ing
(1) v
iole
nce
perp
etra
tion
and
victi
m-
izati
on, (
2) su
bsta
nce
use,
and
(3) r
isky
sex
ual b
ehav
iors
. O
ther
mea
sure
s w
ere
rela
ted
to jo
b sk
ills a
nd o
utco
mes
, ed
ucati
on sk
ills
and
outc
omes
, fina
ncia
l man
agem
ent,
and
pare
nt–c
hild
rela
tions
hip
and
com
mun
icati
on m
easu
res.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Pub
Med
, EB
SCO
Dis
cove
ry S
ervi
ce, E
duca
tion
Reso
urce
s In
form
ation
Cen
ter,
Web
of
Scie
nce,
Psy
cIN
FO
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
(see
tabl
e)
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es e
ligib
le
for i
nclu
sion
mus
t (1)
be p
ublis
hed
in
Engl
ish
in a
n in
depe
nden
t, pe
er- r
e-vi
ewed
jour
nal;
(2) b
e co
nduc
ted
in
deve
lope
d, E
nglis
h sp
eaki
ng c
oun-
trie
s; (3
) hav
e im
plem
ente
d an
inte
rven
tion
that
add
ress
ed a
t lea
st
1 of
the
6 AP
S ar
eas,
del
iver
ed in
an
in-p
erso
n se
tting
; (4)
hav
e in
clud
ed
yout
hs a
t the
5th
- thr
ough
12t
h-gr
ade
leve
ls o
r age
d 10
to 1
8 ye
ars
at s
ome
poin
t dur
ing
inte
rven
tion
impl
emen
ta-
tion;
(5) h
ave
incl
uded
an
eval
uatio
n co
m-
pone
nt w
ith a
com
paris
on g
roup
and
ba
selin
e an
d fo
llow
-up
mea
sure
s; (6
) ha
ve in
clud
ed b
ehav
iora
l mea
sure
s as
out
com
es; a
nd (7
) hav
e re
port
ed
stati
stica
l sig
nific
ance
leve
ls fo
r the
be-
havi
oral
out
com
e m
easu
res.

68
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Beh
avio
ral o
utco
mes
incl
udin
g (1
) vio
lenc
e pe
rpet
ratio
n an
d vi
ctim
izati
on, (
2) su
bsta
nce
use,
and
(3)
risky
sex
ual b
ehav
iors
. Oth
er m
easu
res
wer
e re
late
d to
jo
b sk
ills a
nd o
utco
mes
, edu
catio
n sk
ills
and
outc
omes
, fin
anci
al m
anag
emen
t, an
d pa
rent
–chi
ld re
latio
nshi
p an
d co
mm
unic
ation
mea
sure
s.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Stu
dies
wer
e ex
clud
ed if
th
ey fa
iled
to m
eet t
he in
clus
ion
crite
ria
deta
iled
abov
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: (
see
tabl
e)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): Pr
imar
ily sc
hool
sCo
untr
y(ie
s): D
evel
oped
, Eng
lish-
spea
king
cou
ntrie
s St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s):
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, sc
hool
, fa
mily
, wor
k, re
crea
tion,
OST
): Sc
hool
, Fam
ily, I
ndiv
idua
l
TE
EN
SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Cam
pbel
l-Hei
der e
t al.,
200
912
-16
Teen
Clu
b pl
us P
ositi
ve A
dole
scen
t Life
Ski
lls (P
ALS)
Beca
use
of sm
all s
ampl
e siz
e (1
6), n
o sig
nific
ant fi
ndin
gs
wer
e ob
serv
ed.
Dono
hue
et a
l., 2
005
High
scho
ol st
uden
tsSu
mm
er B
usin
ess I
nstit
ute
(SBI
)Fi
nanc
ial m
anag
emen
t par
ticip
ants
dem
onst
rate
d sig
nific
antly
hig
her s
core
s in
finan
cial
man
agem
ent
skill
s (p<
0.00
1), a
nd a
bilit
y to
man
age
insu
ranc
e (p
<0.0
01) c
ompa
red
with
the
job
soci
al sk
ills
parti
cipa
nts.
Job
soci
al sk
ills p
artic
ipan
ts d
emon
stra
ted
signi
fican
tly h
ighe
r sco
res i
n jo
b in
terv
iew
ing
skill
s (p
<0.0
01),
abili
ty to
inte
ract
pro
fess
iona
lly w
ith o
ther
s at
wor
k (p
<0.0
01),
and
abili
ty to
take
initi
ative
at w
ork
(p<0
.001
), co
mpa
red
with
the
finan
cial
man
agem
ent
parti
cipa
nts.
Ferr
er-W
rede
r et a
l., 2
010
7th to
9th
gra
de st
uden
tsLS
T pl
us T
imeW
iseN
o dr
ug u
se d
iffer
ence
s bet
wee
n th
e gr
oups
. In
terv
entio
n gr
oup
had
high
er a
nxie
ty m
anag
emen
t sk
ills (
p=0.
051)
than
the
com
paris
on g
roup
.
Gree
son
et a
l., 2
015
17 y
ear o
lds
LST
of L
os A
ngel
esN
o sig
nific
ant d
iffer
ence
s bet
wee
n th
e co
ntro
l and
in
terv
entio
n gr
oups
.
Li e
t al.,
200
2Lo
w-in
com
e pa
rent
s and
thei
r 12-
16 y
ear
old
child
ren.
In
form
ed P
aren
ts a
nd C
hild
ren
Toge
ther
(im
PACT
)Pa
rent
s in
the
cont
rol g
roup
had
a lo
wer
con
cord
ance
be
twee
n th
eir u
nder
stan
ding
of t
heir
child
ren’
s be
havi
or a
nd th
eir c
hild
ren’
s rep
orte
d be
havi
or
(p<0
.05)
, whe
reas
the
pare
nts i
n th
e in
terv
entio
n di
d no
t.
Litr
owni
k et
al.,
200
0Pa
rent
s and
thei
r ado
lesc
ent c
hild
ren
Sem
bran
do S
alud
(Sow
ing
Heal
th)
Inte
rven
tion
fam
ilies
had
hig
her r
epor
ts o
f par
ent-c
hild
co
mm
unic
ation
(p<0
.05)
.
Mill
enky
et a
l., 2
014
High
scho
ol y
outh
who
hav
e dr
oppe
d ou
t of
hig
h sc
hool
Nati
onal
Gua
rd Y
outh
Cha
lleng
e Pr
ogra
m (N
GYCP
)In
terv
entio
n pa
rtici
pant
s wer
e m
ore
likel
y to
hav
e ob
tain
ed a
hig
h sc
hool
dip
lom
a or
GED
(p<0
.01)
; ear
ned
at le
ast s
ome
colle
ge c
redi
t (p<
0.01
); be
en e
mpl
oyed
fo
r a g
reat
er n
umbe
r of m
onth
s with
hig
her e
arni
ngs i
n th
e pa
st y
ear (
p<0.
01);
and
mor
e lik
ely
to b
e ov
erw
eigh
t (p
<0.0
5).
Mill
er e
t al.,
201
2Hi
gh sc
hool
mal
e at
hlet
esCo
achi
ng B
oys i
nto
Men
(CBI
M)
No
stati
stica
lly si
gnifi
cant
diff
eren
ces i
n pa
rtici
pant
s and
co
ntro
l in
datin
g vi
olen
ce p
erpe
trati
on o
r bys
tand
er
beha
vior
.
Tebe
s et a
l., 2
007
Mid
dle-
and
hig
h-sc
hool
age
d ad
oles
cent
s (m
ean
of 1
5 ye
ars)
Positi
ve Y
outh
Dev
elop
men
t Col
labo
ratio
n (P
YDC)
One
yea
r afte
r the
inte
rven
tion,
inte
rven
tion
parti
cipa
nts h
ad si
gnifi
cant
ly lo
wer
incr
ease
s in
use
of
alco
hol (
p=0.
029)
, mar
ijuan
a (p
<0.0
01),
othe
r dru
gs
(p<0
.001
), an
d an
y dr
ug (p
<0.0
01) t
han
the
cont
rol
grou
p.

69
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Wan
g et
al.,
201
410
th g
rade
stud
ents
and
thei
r par
ents
Baha
rnia
n Fo
cus o
n O
lder
You
th (B
FOO
Y) p
lus C
arib
bean
In
form
ed P
aren
ts a
nd C
hild
ren
Toge
ther
(Cim
PACT
)At
six
mon
ths p
ost-i
nter
venti
ons B
FOO
Y pa
rtici
pant
s (in
al
l 3 c
ohor
ts) h
ad si
gnifi
cant
ly h
ighe
r con
dom
skill
s tha
n st
uden
ts in
the
stan
dard
hea
lth e
duca
tion
(p<0
.001
). Pa
rtici
pant
s in
the
BFO
OY
+ Ci
mPA
CT h
ad si
gnifi
cant
ly
high
er p
aren
t-ado
lesc
ent s
exua
l risk
com
mun
icati
on
than
par
ticip
ants
in th
e BF
OO
Y an
d st
anda
rd h
ealth
ed
ucati
on g
roup
s at 1
2 m
onth
s (p<
0.05
) and
18
mon
ths
(p<0
.05)
.
Wol
fe e
t al.,
200
314
-16
year
old
sYo
uth
Rela
tions
hips
Pro
ject
(YRP
)N
o sig
nific
ant d
iffer
ence
s in
beha
vior
al o
utco
mes
am
ong
the
inte
rven
tion
and
cont
rol g
roup
s in
the
final
sa
mpl
e. W
hile
not
stati
stica
lly si
gnifi
cant
, ove
r the
2
year
s of t
he st
udy,
inte
rven
tion
parti
cipa
nts w
ere
less
ph
ysic
ally
abu
sive
tow
ard
thei
r dati
ng p
artn
ers a
nd
repo
rted
less
vic
timiza
tion.
Wol
fe e
t al.,
200
9; W
olfe
et a
l., 2
012
14-1
5 ye
ar o
lds
Four
th R
The
inte
rven
tion
grou
p ha
d sig
nific
antly
low
er ra
tes
of p
hysic
al d
ating
vio
lenc
e th
an th
e co
ntro
l gro
up
(p=0
.05)
. Am
ong
a su
b sa
mpl
e of
196
9th
gra
de
stud
ents
, int
erve
ntion
par
ticip
ants
wer
e m
ore
than
tw
ice
as li
kely
to d
emon
stra
te n
egoti
ation
skill
s (p
<0.0
5), a
nd fo
ur ti
mes
mor
e lik
ely
to re
sist p
eer
pres
sure
(p<0
.05)
than
the
cont
rol p
artic
ipan
ts.

70
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
8. C
atal
ano
RF,
Ski
nner
ML,
Alv
arad
o G
, Kap
ung
u C
, Rea
vley
N, P
atto
n G
C, e
t al
. Po
siti
ve Y
out
h D
evel
op
men
t P
rog
ram
s in
Lo
w-
and
Mid
dle
-Inc
om
e C
oun
trie
s: A
Co
ncep
tual
Fra
mew
ork
and
S
yste
mat
ic R
evie
w o
f E
ffica
cy. J
our
nal o
f A
do
lesc
ent
Hea
lth
[Int
erne
t]. 2
019
July
[ci
ted
201
9 Ju
ly 2
6]; 6
5(1)
:15-
31. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
ww
w.n
cbi.n
lm.n
ih.g
ov/
pub
med
/310
1072
5 FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
10-
29 y
ears
of a
geDa
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: 1
990-
mid
201
6#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 9
4 M
ost s
yste
mati
c re
view
s sta
rt w
ith a
sing
le o
utco
me
of in
tere
st o
r a re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n a
clas
s of
inte
rven
tions
and
a si
ngle
out
com
e (e
.g.,
fam
ily-
orie
nted
pro
gram
s des
igne
d to
pre
vent
vio
lenc
e). F
or
this
revi
ew, t
he se
arch
term
s use
d to
iden
tify
diffe
rent
PY
D co
nstr
ucts
wer
e m
any
and
varie
d; a
larg
e de
velo
pmen
tal p
erio
d w
as c
over
ed (i
.e.,
child
hood
, ad
oles
cenc
e, a
nd y
oung
adu
lthoo
d); a
nd d
iver
se ty
pes
of in
terv
entio
ns a
cros
s a b
road
set o
f out
com
es w
ere
incl
uded
. As a
resu
lt of
this
inte
ntion
ally
bro
ad sc
ope,
a
larg
e nu
mbe
r of ti
tles w
ere
retr
ieve
d an
d sc
reen
ed.
The
num
ber a
nd c
ompl
exity
of t
he se
arch
term
s m
ay h
ave
resu
lted
in m
issin
g so
me
rele
vant
stud
ies.
Be
sides
the
limita
tions
enc
ount
ered
in c
ondu
cting
the
revi
ew it
self,
ther
e ar
e lim
itatio
ns in
the
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
resu
lts fo
undi
ng th
ese
eval
uatio
ns. I
n m
ost c
ases
, no
n-sig
nific
ant r
esul
ts w
ere
repo
rted
alo
ng w
ith
signi
fican
t one
s, b
ut it
is p
ossib
le th
at so
me
inte
nded
eff
ects
wer
e fo
und
to b
e no
t sig
nific
ant b
ut n
ot
repo
rted
, lea
ding
to a
n ov
erly
pos
itive
impr
essio
n of
th
e pr
ogra
m. P
rogr
am d
escr
iptio
ns a
re li
mite
d to
wha
t w
as a
vaila
ble
in re
port
s and
pub
licati
ons,
mak
ing
it im
poss
ible
to m
ake
stro
nger
stat
emen
ts a
bout
whi
ch
prog
ram
feat
ures
or c
hara
cter
istics
lead
to p
ositi
ve
resu
lts.
The
evid
ence
we
did
find
supp
orts
usin
g PY
D ap
proa
ches
with
vu
lner
able
or u
nder
serv
ed
popu
latio
ns to
redu
ce
disp
ariti
es in
ass
ets,
ag
ency
, con
trib
ution
, and
en
ablin
g en
viro
nmen
ts.
This
sugg
ests
that
w
hen
disp
ariti
es in
PYD
co
nstr
ucts
are
nar
row
ed,
disp
ariti
es in
pos
itive
yo
uth
outc
omes
such
as
inco
me
and
heal
th c
an a
lso
be re
duce
d.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: S
ee ta
ble
belo
w.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: S
ixty
per
cent
of t
he 3
5 pr
ogra
ms
with
rigo
rous
eva
luati
ons d
emon
stra
ted
positi
ve e
ffect
s on
beh
avio
rs, i
nclu
ding
subs
tanc
e us
e an
d ris
ky se
xual
ac
tivity
, and
/or m
ore
dist
al d
evel
opm
enta
l out
com
es,
such
as e
mpl
oym
ent a
nd h
ealth
indi
cato
rs. T
here
is
prom
ising
evi
denc
e th
at P
YD p
rogr
ams c
an b
e eff
ectiv
e in
LM
ICs;
how
ever
, mor
e rig
orou
s exa
min
ation
with
long
-te
rm fo
llow
-up
is re
quire
d to
est
ablis
h if
thes
e pr
ogra
ms
offer
ben
efits
sim
ilar t
o th
ose
seen
in h
ighe
r inc
ome
coun
trie
s.
Inte
rven
tion
Ove
rall:
PYD
, or P
ositi
ve Y
outh
Dev
elop
men
t3Da
taba
ses s
earc
hed
for r
evie
w: S
copu
s an
d Pu
bMed
. For
the
gray
lite
ratu
re,
targ
eted
sear
ches
of k
now
ledg
e re
posit
ory
Web
site
s hos
ted
by
inte
rnati
onal
age
ncie
s ,in
clud
ing
the
U.K.
Dep
artm
ent f
or In
tern
ation
al
Deve
lopm
ent,
the
Uni
ted
Nati
ons,
the
Inte
r-Am
eric
an D
evel
opm
ent B
ank,
and
th
e W
orld
Ban
k.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
Sch
ool c
urric
ula
deliv
ered
in
wee
kly
sess
ions
by
trai
ned
scho
ol o
r pro
ject
staff
de
mon
stra
ted
som
e su
cces
s in
impr
ovin
g kn
owle
dge,
atti
tude
s, a
nd so
ft sk
ills.
The
se p
rogr
ams u
sual
ly
incl
uded
faci
litat
ed in
tera
ction
s and
acti
vitie
s to
supp
ort
peer
-to-p
eer i
nvol
vem
ent.
The
prog
ram
s with
rigo
rous
ev
alua
tions
, the
pro
gram
s tha
t int
entio
nally
targ
eted
se
vera
l rel
ated
pos
itive
you
th o
utco
mes
are
the
mos
t pr
omisi
ng fo
r lar
ger s
cale
impl
emen
tatio
ns. M
any
of
thes
e pr
ogra
ms e
ncou
rage
d yo
uth
enga
gem
ent i
n th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e pr
ogra
m th
roug
h cr
eatin
g gr
oups
, pa
rtici
patin
g in
dec
ision
s abo
ut to
pics
and
acti
vitie
s w
ithin
the
prog
ram
s and
thro
ugh
prov
idin
g pe
er su
ppor
t. Di
rect
invo
lvem
ent o
f you
ng p
eopl
e in
dev
elop
ing
new
pr
ogra
ms w
as le
ss e
vide
nt, b
ut th
ere
is gr
owin
g ev
iden
ce
that
you
th in
volv
emen
t in
ever
y le
vel o
f dec
ision
-mak
ing
coul
d im
prov
e pr
ogra
m o
utco
mes
.
Inte
rven
tion
exam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
): Se
e ta
ble
belo
w.
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria: (
1) b
e pu
blish
ed b
etw
een
1990
and
mid
-201
6;
(2) b
e w
ritten
in E
nglis
h, S
pani
sh, o
r Fr
ench
; (3)
incl
ude
an e
valu
ation
in a
n LM
IC; a
nd (4
)targ
et y
outh
bet
wee
n 10
an
d 29
yea
rs o
f age
. The
pro
gram
had
to
addr
ess m
ore
than
one
PYD
con
stru
ctor
ad
dres
s one
PYD
con
stru
ct a
cros
s m
ultip
le so
cial
izatio
n do
-mai
ns (e
.g.,
hom
e, sc
hool
, and
pee
rs).
Out
com
es o
vera
ll—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: I
mpr
ove
one
or m
ore
spec
ific
positi
ve y
outh
ou
tcom
es, s
uch
as e
duca
tion,
em
ploy
men
t, or
hea
lth.4
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
: See
abo
ve.
Out
com
es fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or e
quiv
alen
t (sp
ecify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: S
ee ta
ble
belo
w.
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es fo
r Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or p
eopl
e su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): sc
hool
Coun
try(
ies)
: low
- and
mid
dle-
inco
me
coun
trie
s (LM
ICs)
St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s): N
/ALe
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
scho
ol

71
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RA
GE
GR
OU
P IN
STU
DY
INTE
RV
EN
TIO
NO
UTC
OM
EN
OTE
S
Jega
nnat
han
et a
l., 2
014
Seco
ndar
y sc
hool
Life
Ski
lls T
rain
ing
for S
uici
de P
reve
ntion
Bo
ys w
ith h
igh-
risk
beha
vior
impr
oved
on
rela
tions
hips
, pur
pose
in li
fe, a
nd li
fe sk
ills G
irls
impr
oved
rela
tions
hips
, hea
lth m
aint
enan
ce, a
nd
life
skill
s
Ekhti
ari e
t al.,
201
2Hi
gh S
choo
lVi
olen
ce P
reve
ntion
, Life
skill
s tra
inin
g: sp
ecifi
c to
do
mes
tic v
iole
nce
with
focu
s gro
ups f
or g
irls,
trai
ning
for
scho
ol c
ouns
elor
s in
prev
entio
n an
d fa
cilit
ating
par
ent
invo
lvem
ent
Redu
ced
favo
rabl
e atti
tude
s tow
ard
dom
estic
vi
olen
ce Im
prov
ed v
iole
nce
prev
entiv
e be
havi
ors,
co
mm
unic
ation
stra
tegi
es re
late
d to
dom
estic
vi
olen
ce a
mon
g gi
rls
Srik
ala
and
Kish
ore,
201
014
-16
year
-old
you
thLi
fe S
kills
for M
enta
l Hea
lth, L
ife sk
ills t
rain
ing
in sc
hool
Im
prov
ed se
lf-es
teem
, per
ceiv
ed c
opin
g, a
djus
tmen
t in
scho
ol a
nd w
ith te
ache
rs5 , a
nd p
roso
cial
beh
avio
r
Roth
eram
-Bor
us e
t al.,
201
213
-21
Voca
tiona
l tra
inin
g w
ith H
IV p
reve
ntion
for U
gand
an
yout
h Re
duce
d de
linqu
ent b
ehav
iors
and
impr
oved
em
ploy
men
t, qu
ality
of l
ife, a
nd so
cial
supp
ort
Amin
et a
l., 2
016
12-1
8 ye
ar o
ld g
irls i
n Ba
ngla
desh
PY
D-ba
sed
educ
ation
al su
ppor
t del
iver
ed in
four
ver
sions
: tu
torin
g, g
ende
r aw
aren
ess,
live
lihoo
d sk
ills,
and
co
mm
unity
eng
agem
ent.6
Redu
ced
child
mar
riage
, inc
reas
ed S
RH k
now
ledg
e.
Incr
ease
d sc
hool
atte
ndan
ce, p
rivat
e tu
tors
, ex
perie
nce
in w
orki
ng fo
r pay
(gen
der a
war
enes
s an
d liv
elih
oods
inte
rven
tions
),ind
icat
ors o
f soc
ial
free
dom
s and
redu
ced
hara
ssm
ent o
utsi
de
of h
ome(
gend
er a
war
enes
s and
edu
catio
n in
terv
entio
ns)
Aray
a et
al.,
201
313
-15
year
old
s10
gro
up se
ssio
ns c
over
ing
copi
ng w
ith th
ough
ts a
nd
emoti
ons a
nd p
robl
em-s
olvi
ng. B
oost
er se
ssio
ns a
t 2an
d 7
mon
ths a
fter l
ast s
essio
n
Ther
e w
as n
o ev
iden
ce o
f any
clin
ical
ly im
port
ant
impr
ovem
ent/
diffe
renc
e in
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s.

72
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
9. D
ray
J, B
ow
man
J, C
amp
bel
l E, F
reun
d M
, Wo
lfend
en L
, Ho
dd
er R
K, e
t al
. Sys
tem
atic
Rev
iew
of
Uni
vers
al R
esili
ence
-Fo
cuse
d In
terv
enti
ons
Tar
get
ing
Chi
ld a
nd A
do
lesc
ent
Men
tal H
ealt
h in
the
S
cho
ol S
etti
ng. J
our
nal o
f th
e A
mer
ican
Aca
dem
y o
f C
hild
and
Ad
ole
scen
t P
sych
iatr
y [I
nter
net]
. 201
7 O
ct; 5
6(10
):813
-824
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/2
8942
803
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WS
R M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
SY
STE
MAT
IC R
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
5-1
8 ye
ars
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 199
5-20
15#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 4
9
Insu
ffici
ent n
umbe
r of t
rials
in so
me
subg
roup
s,
thus
pre
clud
ing
com
pleti
on o
f all
met
a-an
alys
es
for s
ubgr
oups
spec
ified
a p
riori.
Num
ber o
f tria
ls re
porti
ng a
dequ
ate
data
for
met
a-an
alys
es v
arie
d by
out
com
e an
d su
bgro
up.
Rese
arch
sugg
ests
that
the
incl
usio
n of
4 o
r few
er
stud
ies i
n ra
ndom
effe
cts m
eta-
anal
ysis
may
re
sult
in im
prec
ise e
stim
ation
s of b
etw
een-
stud
y va
rianc
e.
Ri
sk o
f bia
s of i
nclu
ded
stud
ies w
as ra
ted
high
ov
eral
l due
to 2
key
met
hodo
logi
cal l
imita
tions
, na
mel
y, la
ck o
f blin
ding
of k
ey st
udy
pers
onne
l or
par
ticip
ants
, and
com
mon
use
of s
elf-r
epor
t ou
tcom
e m
easu
res.
Bec
ause
of t
he n
atur
e of
un
iver
sal,
scho
ol- b
ased
inte
rven
tion
tria
ls, su
ch
stud
y qu
aliti
es m
ay n
ot e
asily
be
mod
ified
to
redu
ce b
ias.
He
tero
gene
ity re
mai
ned
high
for t
he o
utco
mes
of
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s and
anx
iety
sym
ptom
s.
It
was
not
pos
sible
to te
st w
heth
er th
e in
terv
entio
ns a
ffect
ed re
silie
nce
per s
e, a
s ver
y fe
w tr
ials
also
pro
vide
d a
mea
sure
of l
evel
s of t
he
resil
ienc
e pr
otec
tive
fact
ors t
arge
ted
with
in th
e in
terv
entio
ns.
Th
e qu
ality
of e
vide
nce
for a
ll m
enta
l hea
lth
prob
lem
out
com
es, e
xcep
t dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s,
was
dow
ngra
ded
to “
mod
erat
e” b
ecau
se
of m
etho
dolo
gica
l lim
itatio
ns; t
he q
ualit
y of
evi
denc
e fo
r dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s was
do
wng
rade
d to
“lo
w”
beca
use
of m
etho
dolo
gica
l lim
itatio
ns a
nd h
igh
prob
abili
ty o
f pub
licati
on
bias
bas
ed o
n vi
sual
insp
ectio
n of
the
funn
el p
lot.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: A
dole
scen
t Tria
ls (1
1-18
Ye
ars)
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: T
he m
ost p
rom
ise is
for u
sing
univ
ersa
l re
silie
nce-
focu
sed
inte
rven
tions
at l
east
for s
hort
-ter
m
redu
ction
s in
depr
essi
ve a
nd a
nxie
ty sy
mpt
oms f
or
child
ren
and
adol
esce
nts,
par
ticul
arly
if a
cog
nitiv
e-be
havi
oral
ther
apy
base
d ap
proa
ch is
use
d.
Inte
rven
tion
Ove
rall:
Incl
uded
tria
ls as
sess
ed in
terv
entio
ns
that
add
ress
ed a
t lea
st 3
inte
rnal
resil
ienc
e pr
otec
tive
fact
ors
(see
out
com
es).
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Med
line,
Ps
ycIN
FO, E
RIC,
EM
BASE
, CIN
AHL,
and
the
Coch
rane
Cen
tral
Reg
ister
of C
ontr
olle
d Tr
ials
(CEN
TRAL
, The
Coc
hran
e Li
brar
y),
Goog
le S
chol
ar
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
For
ado
lesc
ent t
rials,
met
a-an
alys
is w
as p
ossib
le fo
r 5 o
f 7 o
utco
mes
and
indi
cate
d a
sign
ifica
nt o
vera
ll in
terv
entio
n eff
ect f
or in
tern
aliz
ing
prob
lem
s onl
y. R
esul
ts o
f the
pre
sent
revi
ew su
gges
t so
me
bene
fit o
f int
erve
ning
bot
h in
chi
ldho
od (5
−10
year
s) a
nd in
ado
lesc
ence
(11−
18 y
ears
), de
pend
ing
on
the
men
tal h
ealth
out
com
e be
ing
targ
eted
.
Inte
rven
tion
exam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
): Se
e ab
ove.
Re
view
incl
usio
n cr
iteria
: Inc
lude
d st
udie
s wer
e ra
ndom
ized
cont
rolle
d tr
ials
(RCT
s), i
nclu
ding
clu
ster
rand
omize
d co
ntro
lled
tria
ls (C
RCTs
) tha
t com
pare
d a
univ
ersa
l, sc
hool
-bas
ed, r
esili
ence
-fo
cuse
d in
terv
entio
n to
a c
ontr
ol o
r an
alte
rnati
ve in
terv
entio
n
Out
com
es o
vera
ll—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: R
esili
ence
pro
tecti
ve fa
ctor
s: d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms,
anx
iety
sym
ptom
s, h
yper
activ
ity, c
ondu
ct
prob
lem
s, in
tern
aliz
ing
prob
lem
s, e
xter
naliz
ing
prob
lem
s, o
r ge
nera
l psy
chol
ogic
al d
istre
ss.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
: Int
erve
ntion
s co
nduc
ted
in w
ar zo
nes w
ere
excl
uded
. O
ther
wise
, exc
lusio
n fr
om th
e re
view
w
as d
eter
min
ed b
y a
failu
re to
mee
t the
in
clus
ion
crite
ria d
etai
led
abov
e.
Out
com
es fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or e
quiv
alen
t (sp
ecify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: D
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms,
anx
iety
sym
ptom
s, h
yper
activ
ity, c
ondu
ct
prob
lem
s, in
tern
aliz
ing
prob
lem
s, e
xter
naliz
ing
prob
lem
s,
gene
ral p
sych
olog
ical
dis
tres
s
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
, Co
chra
ne H
andb
ook
Out
com
es fo
r Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or p
eopl
e su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): sc
hool
Coun
try(
ies)
: 16
tota
l, th
e la
rges
t con
trib
utor
s bei
ng fr
om th
e U.
S. a
nd A
ustr
alia
St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s): N
/ALe
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
scho
ol

73
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
10. D
unni
ng D
L, G
riffi
ths
K, K
uyke
n W
, Cra
ne C
, Fo
ulke
s L,
Par
ker
J, D
alg
leis
h T.
The
Eff
ects
of
Min
dfu
lnes
s-B
ased
Inte
rven
tio
ns o
n C
og
niti
on
and
Men
tal H
ealt
h in
Chi
ldre
n an
d A
do
lesc
ents
–
A M
eta-
Ana
lysi
s o
f R
and
om
ized
Co
ntro
lled
Tri
als.
Jo
urna
l of
Chi
ld P
sych
olo
gy
and
Psy
chia
try
[Int
erne
t]. 2
018
Oct
22
[cit
ed 2
019
Aug
19]
; 60(
3):2
44-2
58. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
onl
inel
ibra
ry.w
iley.
com
/do
i/fu
ll/10
.111
1/jc
pp
.129
80FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
You
th 1
8 ye
ars a
nd
youn
ger.
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: Inc
eptio
n of
da
taba
ses u
tilize
d –
Oct
201
7#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 3
3
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: M
eta-
anal
ysis
aggr
egat
ed
sam
ples
with
the
aim
of c
aptu
ring
data
for y
outh
18
year
s and
yo
unge
r
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s:
All R
CTs m
eta-
anal
ysis:
Acr
oss a
ll RC
Ts, t
hose
par
ticip
ants
re
ceiv
ing
an M
BI im
prov
ed si
gnifi
cant
ly m
ore
than
thos
e re
ceiv
ing
the
cont
rol c
ondi
tion
for t
he c
ateg
orie
s of
Min
dful
ness
and
Exe
cutiv
e Fu
nctio
ns. T
he re
lativ
e be
nefit
of
rece
ivin
g M
BIs f
or A
ttenti
on w
as n
ot si
gnifi
cant
. The
ca
tego
ries o
f Dep
ress
ion
and
Anxi
ety/
Stre
ss sh
owed
sig
nific
antly
gre
ater
redu
ction
s afte
r an
MBI
than
afte
r th
e co
ntro
l con
ditio
n. M
BIs d
id n
ot h
ave
a sig
nific
antly
gr
eate
r im
pact
on
chan
ging
Soc
ial B
ehav
ior.
How
ever
, th
e ca
tego
ry o
f Neg
ative
Beh
avio
r was
sign
ifica
nt, w
ith
MBI
reci
pien
ts sh
owin
g a
grea
ter r
educ
tion
in p
robl
ems
than
thos
e re
ceiv
ing
the
cont
rol c
ondi
tion.
For
stati
stica
lly
signi
fican
t res
ults
, effe
ct si
zes r
ange
d fr
om sm
all (
.19)
to
smal
l-to-
mod
erat
e (.3
0).
Indi
vidu
al, r
ando
m e
ffect
s met
a-re
gres
sions
show
ed
that
age
was
a si
gnifi
cant
mod
erat
or o
f im
prov
emen
ts
in E
xecu
tive
Func
tions
(Q =
5.6
0, p
= .0
18),
with
larg
er
effe
ct si
zes i
n fa
vor o
f the
MBI
ass
ocia
ted
with
old
er
age.
For
dur
ation
of M
BI, t
otal
trai
ning
hou
rs w
as a
sig
nific
ant m
oder
ator
of a
redu
ction
in N
egati
ve B
ehav
ior
(Q =
7.3
0, p
= .0
07),
with
larg
er e
ffect
size
s rel
ated
to
mor
e ho
urs o
f tra
inin
g. In
tere
stin
gly,
Risk
of b
ias s
core
ha
d no
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
on
any
outc
ome
cate
gory
.
Activ
e Co
ntro
l RCT
s: D
ata
show
s tha
t tho
se c
ompl
eting
M
BIs i
mpr
oved
sign
ifica
ntly
mor
e th
an th
ose
in a
ctive
co
ntro
l int
erve
ntion
s for
Min
dful
ness
(ES=
0.4
2, C
I 0.1
6 to
0.
67) a
nd th
ere
was
also
a g
reat
er re
ducti
on in
pro
blem
s fo
llow
ing
an M
BI th
an fo
llow
ing
the
activ
e co
ntro
l co
nditi
on fo
r the
cat
egor
ies D
epre
ssio
n an
d An
xiet
y/St
ress
. Effe
ct si
zes f
or si
gnifi
cant
resu
lts ra
nged
from
smal
l (.1
8) to
smal
l-to-
mod
erat
e (.4
2). T
here
wer
e no
sign
ifica
nt
effec
ts o
n ch
ange
s in
mea
sure
s of S
ocia
l Beh
avio
r, N
egati
ve B
ehav
ior,
Exec
utive
Fun
ction
s, o
r Atte
ntion
.Ag
e sig
nific
antly
mod
erat
ed im
prov
emen
ts in
Neg
ative
Be
havi
or (Q
= 5
.27,
p =
.021
), w
ith la
rger
effe
ct
sizes
ass
ocia
ted
with
you
nger
age
. Risk
of b
ias s
core
sig
nific
antly
mod
erat
ed m
easu
res o
f Min
dful
ness
, w
ith la
rger
effe
ct si
zes r
elat
ed to
gre
ater
risk
of b
ias
(Q =
4.3
6, p
= .0
37).
Tota
l hou
rs o
f MBI
trai
ning
had
no
signi
fican
t effe
ct o
n an
y ou
tcom
e ca
tego
ry.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: W
hen
all R
CTs a
re in
clud
ed in
th
e an
alys
is, a
lmos
t all
of th
e ca
tego
ries s
uffer
from
he
tero
gene
ity. T
he p
rese
nce
of h
eter
ogen
eity
is
indi
cativ
e of
a la
ck o
f sim
ilarit
y be
twee
n th
e in
clud
ed
stud
ies,
in th
is ca
se p
erha
ps w
ith re
gard
s to
the
met
hodo
logy
use
d (e
.g.,
diffe
rent
con
trol
gro
ups)
. For
th
e 17
RCT
s with
acti
ve c
ontr
ol g
roup
s, h
eter
ogen
eity
is
less
of a
n iss
ue b
ut is
still
signi
fican
tly p
rese
nt in
bo
th o
f the
beh
avio
ral c
ateg
orie
s.Th
ere
was
also
evi
denc
e of
pub
licati
on b
ias i
n th
e su
b-ca
tego
ries o
f Neg
ative
Beh
avio
r and
Anx
iety
/St
ress
and
in a
dditi
on, f
or th
e RC
Ts w
ith a
ctive
con
trol
gr
oups
, in
the
Min
dful
ness
cat
egor
y. It
is im
port
ant t
o hi
ghlig
ht th
is as
it su
gges
ts th
at th
e st
udie
s inc
lude
d he
re, i
n th
e af
orem
entio
ned
cate
gorie
s at l
east
, ar
e sy
stem
atica
lly d
iffer
ent t
o un
publ
ished
stud
ies.
Sp
ecifi
cally
, the
re is
an
odds
ratio
of 2
.3 fo
r pre
ferr
ed
publ
icati
on o
f pos
itive
resu
lts (D
ubbe
n &
Bec
k-Bo
rnho
ldt,
2005
) sug
gesti
ng th
at th
ere
may
be
an
over
estim
ation
of t
he p
ositi
ve e
ffect
s of M
BIs.
Even
thou
gh R
CTs a
re th
e go
ld st
anda
rd re
sear
ch
desig
n, th
ere
are
still
rela
tivel
y fe
w m
indf
ulne
ss
stud
ies w
ith c
hild
ren/
adol
esce
nts t
hat a
dopt
them
, te
stify
ing
to h
ow e
arly
alo
ng th
e in
terv
entio
n de
velo
pmen
t tra
ject
ory
MBI
s for
you
th a
re.
Anot
her p
oten
tial i
ssue
is th
at m
any
stud
ies c
hoos
e to
test
new
MBI
pro
toco
ls ra
ther
than
run
repl
icati
on
stud
ies o
n es
tabl
ished
MBI
s.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
M
indf
ulne
ss-B
ased
Inte
rven
tions
(MBI
s): I
nter
venti
ons a
imed
at
aug
men
ting
min
dful
ness
(defi
ned
as in
tenti
onal
ly d
irecti
ng
atten
tion
to p
rese
nt e
xper
ienc
es w
ith a
n atti
tude
of c
urio
sity
and
acce
ptan
ce) t
hrou
gh tr
aini
ng. I
t is h
ypot
hesiz
ed th
at
the
enha
ncem
ent o
f pro
xim
al sk
ills t
rain
ed b
y M
BIs,
such
as
non
judg
men
tal a
ttenti
on c
ontr
ol, m
ay h
ave
dow
nstr
eam
eff
ects
on
mor
e di
stal
out
com
es su
ch a
s im
prov
ed b
ehav
ior o
r re
duce
d sy
mpt
oms o
f psy
chop
atho
logy
.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Pub
Med
, ER
IC, C
ochr
ane,
EM
BASE
, Psy
cIN
FO, W
eb
of S
cien
ce.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
abo
ve)

74
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
(See
abo
ve)
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es w
ere
incl
uded
if
the
stud
y fu
lfille
d th
e fo
llow
ing
requ
irem
ents
: 1) D
esig
n m
ust c
ompa
re
the
effec
ts o
f min
dful
ness
aga
inst
a
cont
rol c
ondi
tion
and
parti
cipa
nts w
ere
rand
omly
ass
igne
d to
eith
er c
ondi
tion
(RCT
), 2)
Par
ticip
ants
of t
he st
udy
mus
t be
age
d 18
yea
rs o
r you
nger
, 3) t
he c
ore
of th
e m
indf
ulne
ss tr
aini
ng p
rogr
am
cons
isted
of t
he fo
llow
ing
esse
ntial
el
emen
ts: p
rese
nt m
omen
t foc
us a
nd
dece
nter
ing,
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f gre
ater
att
entio
nal a
nd b
ehav
iora
l sel
f-reg
ulati
on,
and
enga
gem
ent o
f the
par
ticip
ant
in su
stai
ned
min
dful
ness
med
itatio
n pr
actic
e, 4
) the
inte
rven
tion
mus
t also
be
del
iver
ed o
ver m
ore
than
one
sess
ion
by a
trai
ned
min
dful
ness
teac
her a
nd
min
dful
ness
pra
ctice
mus
t the
cen
tral
co
mpo
nent
of t
he in
terv
entio
n (r
athe
r th
an it
bei
ng c
ombi
ned
with
oth
er
activ
ities
like
min
dful
yog
a, m
indf
ul
colo
ring
or a
subc
ompo
nent
of a
noth
er
inte
rven
tion
like
Acce
ptan
ce C
omm
itmen
t Th
erap
y), a
nd 5
) the
out
com
e m
easu
res
mus
t pro
vide
qua
ntita
tive
data
from
w
hich
effe
ct si
zes c
ould
be
calc
ulat
ed.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Min
dful
ness
, soc
ial b
ehav
ior,
nega
tive
beha
vior
, de
pres
sion,
anx
iety
/str
ess,
exe
cutiv
e fu
nctio
ns, a
ttenti
on
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Exc
lusio
n w
as b
ased
on
a fa
ilure
to m
eet t
he in
clus
ion
crite
ria
deta
iled
abov
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: (
see
abov
e)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): N
ot d
efine
d, fa
ce to
face
inst
ructi
on b
y a
trai
ned
min
dful
ness
inst
ruct
orCo
untr
y(ie
s): N
ot d
efine
dSt
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s):
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, sc
hool
, fa
mily
, wor
k, re
crea
tion,
OST
): In
divi
dual

75
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
11. E
nns
J, H
olm
qvi
st M
, Wen
er P
, Hal
as G
, Ro
thne
y J,
Sch
ultz
A, e
t al
. Map
pin
g in
terv
enti
ons
tha
t p
rom
ote
men
tal h
ealt
h in
the
gen
eral
po
pul
atio
n: A
sco
pin
g r
evie
w o
f re
view
s. P
reve
ntiv
e M
edic
ine
[Int
erne
t]. 2
016
Jun
[cit
ed 2
019
July
26]
; 87:
70-8
0. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
ww
w.n
cbi.n
lm.n
ih.g
ov/
pub
med
/268
9663
4 FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
You
th
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 200
4-20
14#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 3
9N
oted
by
auth
or:
Lim
itatio
ns o
f thi
s sco
ping
revi
ew in
clud
e:
The
poss
ibili
ty th
at so
me
rele
vant
pu
blic
ation
s may
not
hav
e be
en re
trie
ved
by th
e se
arch
stra
tegy
des
pite
the
use
of
syst
emati
c se
arch
met
hods
and
iter
ative
st
eps t
o m
inim
ize o
miss
ions
.
The
com
plex
ity o
f men
tal h
ealth
and
men
tal
wel
l-bei
ng c
once
pts,
and
the
over
lap
betw
een
prom
otion
and
pre
venti
on, w
ere
diffi
cult
to c
aptu
re in
a li
tera
ture
sear
ch, a
nd
as su
ch, t
he re
sults
of t
his s
tudy
may
not
be
trul
y co
mpr
ehen
sive.
Ther
e w
as in
evita
ble
subj
ectiv
ity in
cho
osin
g in
clus
ion
crite
ria a
nd c
onsid
erin
g w
heth
er
artic
les w
ere
rele
vant
for o
ur re
view
.
Beca
use
we
targ
eted
stud
ies i
n hi
gh-in
com
e co
untr
ies,
the
findi
ngs m
ay n
ot b
e ap
plic
able
to
low
- or m
iddl
e-in
com
e co
untr
ies
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: S
ee ta
ble
belo
w.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: R
esea
rch
desc
ribin
g in
terv
entio
ns
to im
prov
e m
enta
l hea
lth o
r pre
vent
men
tal i
llnes
s ov
erw
helm
ingl
y fo
cuse
s on
trea
tmen
t of e
xisti
ng il
lnes
s or
, to
a le
sser
ext
ent,
on e
nhan
cing
resil
ienc
e. W
e be
lieve
th
at a
focu
s on
resil
ienc
e, w
hile
impo
rtan
t, sh
ould
not
di
stra
ct fr
om p
reve
ntion
effo
rts t
hat i
nvol
ve c
reati
ng
envi
ronm
ents
that
are
mor
e su
ppor
tive
of m
enta
l hea
lth.
The
impa
ct o
f pol
icy-
leve
l cha
nges
that
mea
ning
fully
ad
dres
s det
erm
inin
g fa
ctor
s lik
e cr
ime,
pov
erty
, soc
ial
excl
usio
n, a
nd in
equa
lity
need
s to
be st
udie
d. A
t pre
sent
, th
ere
is ve
ry li
ttle
in th
e ac
adem
ic li
tera
ture
that
spea
ks to
th
e im
pact
of t
hese
cha
nges
on
men
tal h
ealth
out
com
es
Inte
rven
tion
Ove
rall:
Fam
ily a
nd p
aren
ting
inte
rven
tions
, in
terv
entio
ns in
indi
geno
us p
opul
ation
s, in
terv
entio
ns in
the
wor
kpla
ce, i
nter
venti
ons i
n ol
der a
dults
, int
erve
ntion
s in
the
gene
ral p
ublic
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Pub
Med
, Ps
ycIN
FO, S
copu
s, C
ochr
ane
CEN
TRAL
, CI
NAH
L an
d ER
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
See
abo
ve.
Inte
rven
tion
exam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
): Se
e ta
ble
belo
w.
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria: H
uman
subj
ects
in
Wes
tern
ized
coun
trie
s (Ca
nada
, U.S
.A.,
Euro
pe, U
.K.,
Aust
ralia
and
New
Zea
land
)Pu
blish
ed in
Eng
lish.
Dat
e ra
nge
July
20
04–J
uly
2014
. Res
earc
h ta
rgeti
ng th
e ge
nera
l pop
ulati
on w
here
no
illne
ss
or p
re-e
xisti
ng c
ondi
tion
is id
entifi
ed.
Met
hods
des
crib
e a
syst
emati
c re
view
, m
eta-
anal
ysis,
met
a-sy
nthe
sis, i
nteg
rativ
e an
alys
is, sc
opin
g re
view
, rap
id re
view
, or a
sy
stem
atic
appr
oach
to d
ata
colle
ction
Out
com
es o
vera
ll—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: I
n st
udie
s ass
essin
g ge
nera
l wel
l-bei
ng, t
he
outc
omes
of i
nter
est i
nclu
de m
easu
res o
f int
erac
tion
(soc
ial
skill
s), c
ogni
tive
abili
ties (
prob
lem
solv
ing
skill
s), e
moti
onal
m
atur
ity (c
opin
g ab
ility
and
resil
ienc
e), s
elf-p
erce
ption
(s
elf-e
stee
m, c
onfid
ence
), ac
adem
ic p
erfo
rman
ce, a
nd ri
sky
beha
vior
s (i.e
., al
coho
l or s
ubst
ance
abu
se)
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
: Int
erve
ntion
s aim
ed
at tr
eatin
g a
spec
ific
popu
latio
n be
caus
e of
a p
re-e
xisti
ng c
ondi
tion
or il
lnes
s.
Artic
les t
hat d
id n
ot re
port
a ri
goro
us
met
hodo
logy
. Res
earc
h fo
cusin
g on
theo
ries o
r con
cept
s sup
porti
ng
polic
y de
velo
pmen
t, bu
t not
repo
rting
m
enta
l hea
lth-r
elat
ed o
utco
mes
. Re
sear
ch fo
cuse
d on
stud
y de
sign(
e.g.
, m
etho
dolo
gy o
r pro
toco
l pap
ers)
Out
com
es fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or e
quiv
alen
t (sp
ecify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: S
ee ta
ble
belo
w.
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): Ar
ksey
and
O’M
alle
y’s
scop
ing
revi
ew m
etho
dolo
gy (A
rkse
y an
d O
’Mal
ley,
2005
) and
Lev
ac e
t al.’s
m
etho
dolo
gy a
dvan
cem
ent (
Leva
c et
al.,
20
10) a
s gui
des f
or th
is sc
opin
g re
view
of
revi
ews.
Out
com
es fo
r Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or p
eopl
e su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): sc
hool
, cou
nsel
ing
cent
ers,
clin
ics,
hom
e, o
r via
the
inte
rnet
Coun
try(
ies)
: Wes
tern
ized
coun
trie
s (Ca
nada
, U.S
., Eu
rope
, U.
K., A
ustr
alia
, and
New
Zea
land
)St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s): N
/ALe
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
scho
ol, c
omm
unity
, ind
ivid
ual

76
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Cale
ar a
nd C
hrist
ense
n (2
010)
Child
ren/
adol
. Age
s 5-1
9CB
T, p
sych
oedu
catio
n, in
terp
erso
nal t
hera
pyIn
dica
ted
prog
ram
s, w
hich
targ
eted
stud
ents
ex
hibi
ting
elev
ated
leve
ls of
dep
ress
ion,
wer
e fo
und
to b
e th
e m
ost e
ffecti
ve. T
each
er p
rogr
am le
ader
s and
th
e em
ploy
men
t of a
ttenti
on c
ontr
ol c
ondi
tions
wer
e as
soci
ated
with
few
er si
gnifi
cant
effe
cts.
Carn
eval
e (2
013)
Adol
esce
nts
CBT
Resu
lts in
dica
ted
cogn
itive
–beh
avio
ral u
nive
rsal
pr
even
tion
inte
rven
tions
can
be
effec
tive
on
decr
easin
g de
pres
sive
sym
ptom
atol
ogy
in a
dole
scen
ts.
All r
evie
wed
stud
ies w
ere
cond
ucte
d in
the
scho
ol
envi
ronm
ent b
y pr
ofes
siona
ls an
d/or
scho
ol st
aff;
how
ever
, onl
y th
ree
of th
e pr
ogra
ms i
mpl
emen
ted
dem
onst
rate
d ad
optio
n an
d su
stai
nabi
lity
O’M
ara
and
Lind
(201
3)Ch
ildre
n/ad
oles
cent
s age
d 6–
18m
enta
l hea
lth p
rom
otion
, prim
ary
prev
entio
n of
men
tal
heal
th d
isord
ers
A w
hole
scho
ol a
ppro
ach
focu
sing
on m
enta
l hea
lth
prom
otion
rath
er th
an o
n m
enta
l illn
ess p
reve
ntion
is
effec
tive
in p
rom
oting
chi
ld a
nd y
outh
men
tal h
ealth
Beau
rega
rd (2
014)
Child
ren
aged
5-1
7cl
assr
oom
pro
gram
s with
a m
ajor
com
pone
nt o
f art
(v
isual
art
s, d
ram
a, m
usic
, dan
ce/m
ovem
ent)
Cultu
ral s
ensiti
vity
is n
eces
sary
bot
h in
inte
rven
tion
and
stud
y de
sign.
Ove
rall,
the
resu
lts in
dica
te th
at
prog
ram
mes
con
tain
ing
a m
ajor
com
pone
nt o
f cr
eativ
e ex
pres
sion
can
be b
enefi
cial
to c
hild
ren
but t
his n
eeds
to b
e co
nsid
ered
with
mod
erati
on.
On
one
hand
, sig
nific
ant i
mpr
ovem
ent w
as fo
und
in
hope
, cop
ing
and
resil
ienc
y, p
roso
cial
beh
avio
urs,
se
lf-es
teem
, im
pairm
ent,
emoti
onal
and
beh
avio
ural
pr
oble
ms (
espe
cial
ly a
ggre
ssiv
e be
havi
ours
), co
nstr
uctio
n of
mea
ning
and
PTS
D sc
ores
. On
the
othe
r han
d, so
me
stud
ies a
lso re
port
ed n
o sig
nific
ant
chan
ge in
pro
soci
al b
ehav
iour
s, se
lf-es
teem
, em
otion
al
and
beha
viou
ral p
robl
ems,
cop
ing
and
resil
ienc
y of
ad
oles
cent
boy
s and
PTS
D (fo
r a la
ck o
f a ta
rget
ed
inte
rven
tion)
.
Max
wel
l et a
l. (2
008)
Ag
ed 3
-18
psyc
hoed
ucati
on, C
BT, i
nter
pers
onal
psy
chot
hera
pyIn
scho
ols,
sust
aine
d br
oad-
base
d m
enta
l hea
lth
prom
otion
pro
gram
mes
com
bine
d w
ith m
ore
targ
eted
be
havi
oura
l and
cog
nitiv
e-be
havi
oura
l the
rapy
(C
BT) f
or th
ose
child
ren
with
iden
tifiab
le e
moti
onal
w
ellb
eing
and
men
tal h
ealth
nee
ds, o
ffer e
vide
nce
of a
dem
onst
rabl
y eff
ectiv
e ap
proa
ch. E
arly
and
brie
f in
terv
entio
n pr
ogra
mm
es w
hich
redu
ce w
aitin
g tim
es
for s
ervi
ces a
ppea
r pro
misi
ng a
ppro
ache
s and
seem
to
redu
ce th
e nu
mbe
r of s
essio
ns a
fam
ily re
quire
. Th
ere
is a
reas
onab
ly st
rong
evi
denc
e ba
se to
supp
ort
targ
eted
wor
k w
ith b
oth
pare
nts a
nd c
hild
ren.
Horo
witz
and
Gar
ber (
2006
)Ag
ed <
21CB
TBo
th se
lecti
ve a
nd in
dica
ted
prev
entio
n pr
ogra
ms
wer
e m
ore
effec
tive
than
uni
vers
al p
rogr
ams a
t fol
low
-up
, eve
n w
hen
the
2 st
udie
s with
col
lege
stud
ents
w
ere
excl
uded
.
Mer
ry a
nd S
penc
e (2
007)
Aged
5-1
9ps
ycho
educ
ation
, CBT
, int
erpe
rson
al p
sych
othe
rapy
Positi
ve re
sults
afte
r int
erve
ntion
and
at f
ollo
w-u
p ha
ve b
een
repo
rted
in a
num
ber o
f tar
gete
d st
udie
s,
alth
ough
an
attem
pt to
repl
icat
e fin
ding
s in
a sc
hool
an
d in
a p
rimar
y ca
re se
tting
wer
e un
succ
essf
ul. M
ost
stud
ies o
f uni
vers
al in
terv
entio
ns h
ave
show
n a
shor
t-te
rm e
ffect
that
did
not
per
sist a
t fol
low
-up.
Stice
et a
l. (2
009)
Child
ren
and
adol
esce
nts
CBT,
psy
choe
duca
tion
Larg
er e
ffect
s em
erge
d fo
r pro
gram
s tar
getin
g hi
gh-
risk
indi
vidu
als,
sam
ples
with
mor
e fe
mal
es, s
ampl
es
with
old
er a
dole
scen
ts, p
rogr
ams w
ith a
shor
ter
dura
tion
and
with
hom
ewor
k as
signm
ents
, and
pr
ogra
ms d
eliv
ered
by
prof
essio
nal i
nter
venti
onist
s.
Resu
lts su
gges
t tha
t dep
ress
ion
prev
entio
n eff
orts
pr
oduc
e a
high
er y
ield
if th
ey in
corp
orat
e fa
ctor
s as
soci
ated
with
larg
er in
terv
entio
n eff
ects
(e.g
., se
lecti
ve p
rogr
ams w
ith a
shor
ter d
urati
on th
at in
clud
e ho
mew
ork)
.

77
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Chris
tens
en e
t al.
(201
0)Ag
ed 1
1-25
CBT,
exe
rcise
, psy
choe
duca
tion
The
effec
tiven
ess o
f 18
anxi
ety
and
26 d
epre
ssio
n st
udie
s add
ress
ing
prev
entio
n in
com
mun
ity
prog
ram
s wer
e id
entifi
ed u
sing
syst
emati
c re
view
m
etho
dolo
gy. A
nxie
ty a
nd d
epre
ssio
n sy
mpt
oms
wer
e re
duce
d in
~60
% o
f the
pro
gram
s. C
ogni
tive
beha
vior
al th
erap
y pr
ogra
ms w
ere
mor
e co
mm
on
than
oth
er in
terv
entio
ns a
nd w
ere
cons
isten
tly fo
und
to lo
wer
sym
ptom
s or p
reve
nt d
epre
ssio
n or
anx
iety
. Au
tom
ated
or c
ompu
teriz
ed in
terv
entio
ns sh
owed
pr
omise
, with
60%
of a
nxie
ty p
rogr
ams a
nd 8
3% o
f de
pres
sion
prog
ram
s yie
ldin
g su
cces
sful
out
com
es o
n at
leas
t one
mea
sure
.
Rich
ards
on e
t al.
(201
0)Ag
ed <
18co
mpu
teriz
ed C
BTAl
l stu
dies
repo
rted
redu
ction
s in
clin
ical
sym
ptom
s an
d al
so im
prov
emen
ts in
var
iabl
es su
ch a
s beh
avio
ur,
self-
este
em a
nd c
ogni
tions
. Sati
sfac
tion
with
tr
eatm
ent w
as m
oder
ate
to h
igh
from
bot
h ch
ildre
n an
d pa
rent
s, th
ough
leve
ls of
dro
p ou
t and
non
-co
mpl
etion
wer
e oft
en h
igh.
Mer
ry e
t al (
2011
)Ag
ed 5
-19
psyc
holo
gica
l and
edu
catio
nal s
trat
egie
s (e.
g. C
BTTh
ere
is so
me
evid
ence
from
this
revi
ew th
at ta
rget
ed
and
univ
ersa
l dep
ress
ion
prev
entio
n pr
ogra
mm
es m
ay
prev
ent t
he o
nset
of d
epre
ssiv
e di
sord
ers c
ompa
red
with
no
inte
rven
tion.
How
ever
, allo
catio
n co
ncea
lmen
t is
uncl
ear i
n m
ost s
tudi
es, a
nd th
ere
is he
tero
gene
ity
in th
e fin
ding
s. T
he p
ersis
tenc
e of
find
ings
sugg
ests
th
at th
is is
real
and
not
a p
lace
bo e
ffect
.
Burk
hard
t and
Bre
nnan
, 201
2Ag
ed 1
1-18
phys
ical
acti
vity
inte
rven
tions
usin
g re
crea
tiona
l dan
ceTh
ere
is so
me
evid
ence
to su
gges
t tha
t inv
olve
men
t in
danc
e m
ay h
ave
som
e po
sitive
out
com
es o
n ph
ysic
al
and
psyc
hoso
cial
wel
l-bei
ng.
Arbe
sman
et a
l., 2
013a
-Arb
esm
an e
t al.,
201
3bAg
ed 3
-21
prog
ram
s bui
ldin
g so
cial
skill
s, p
rom
oting
hea
lth/
prev
entin
g di
sord
ers,
and
focu
sed
on p
lay,
leisu
re o
r re
crea
tion
activ
ities
At th
e un
iver
sal l
evel
, str
ong
evid
ence
exi
sts f
or
the
effec
tiven
ess o
f occ
upati
on- a
nd a
ctivi
ty-b
ased
in
terv
entio
ns in
man
y ar
eas,
incl
udin
g pr
ogra
ms
that
focu
s on
soci
al–e
moti
onal
lear
ning
; sch
oolw
ide
bully
ing
prev
entio
n; a
nd a
fter-s
choo
l, pe
rfor
min
g ar
ts,
and
stre
ss m
anag
emen
t acti
vitie
s. A
t the
targ
eted
le
vel,
stro
ng e
vide
nce
indi
cate
s tha
t soc
ial a
nd li
fe
skill
s pro
gram
s are
effe
ctive
for c
hild
ren
who
are
ag
gres
sive,
hav
e be
en re
ject
ed, a
nd a
re te
enag
e m
othe
rs. T
he e
vide
nce
also
is st
rong
that
chi
ldre
n w
ith in
telle
ctua
l im
pairm
ents
, dev
elop
men
tal d
elay
s,
and
lear
ning
disa
biliti
es b
enefi
t fro
m so
cial
skill
s pr
ogra
mm
ing
and
play
, lei
sure
, and
recr
eatio
nal
activ
ities
. Add
ition
ally,
evi
denc
e of
the
effec
tiven
ess
of so
cial
skill
s pro
gram
s is s
tron
g fo
r chi
ldre
n re
quiri
ng
serv
ices
at t
he in
tens
ive
leve
l (e.
g., t
hose
with
auti
sm
spec
trum
diso
rder
, dia
gnos
ed m
enta
l illn
ess,
serio
us
beha
vior
diso
rder
s) to
impr
ove
soci
al b
ehav
ior a
nd
self-
man
agem
ent.
New
ton
and
Cilis
ka, 2
006a
-New
ton
and
Cilis
ka, 2
006b
Any
age
grou
p or
gen
der
soci
al le
arni
ng, C
BT a
nd p
sych
oedu
catio
n (r
eadi
ngs a
nd
refle
ction
, jou
rnal
ing,
inte
rnet
disc
ussio
n gr
oup)
No
robu
st e
vide
nce
exist
s on
the
impa
ct o
f Int
erne
t-ba
sed
prev
entio
n st
rate
gies
on
eatin
g di
sord
ered
sy
mpt
omat
olog
y an
d on
put
ative
fact
ors t
hat
cont
ribut
e to
eati
ng d
isord
er d
evel
opm
ent.

78
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
12. F
eiss
R, D
olin
ger
SB
, Mer
ritt
M, R
eich
e E
, Mar
tin
K, Y
anes
JA
, Tho
mas
CM
, Pan
gel
inan
M. A
Sys
tem
atic
Rev
iew
and
Met
a-A
naly
sis
of
Sch
oo
l-B
ased
Str
ess,
Anx
iety
, and
Dep
ress
ion
Pre
vent
ion
Pro
gra
ms
for
Ad
ole
scen
ts. J
our
nal o
f Yo
uth
and
Ad
ole
scen
ce [
Inte
rnet
]. 2
019
July
26
[cit
ed 2
019
Aug
1];
(ep
ub a
head
of
pri
nt).
Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//lin
k.sp
ring
er.c
om
/art
icle
/10.
1007
%2
Fs10
964-
019-
0108
5-0
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
Ado
lesc
ents
age
d 11
-18
year
sDa
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: 1
990-
2018
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
42
As n
oted
by
auth
or: O
ver h
alf t
he st
udie
s (54
.8%
) ha
d a
high
risk
of b
ias d
ue to
lack
of a
dher
ence
to th
e in
terv
entio
n (e
.g.,
high
dro
p-ou
t, la
ck o
f atte
ndan
ce,
did
not p
rovi
de a
ttend
ance
info
rmati
on).
Also
, a h
igh
amou
nt o
f het
erog
enei
ty a
mon
g m
any
of th
e st
udie
s.Au
thor
is c
lear
to n
ote
that
man
y sc
hool
s, e
spec
ially
th
ose
in lo
wer
SES
or r
ural
are
as, m
ay n
ot b
e ca
pabl
e of
impl
emen
ting
such
pro
gram
s reg
ardl
ess o
f the
ir effi
cacy
.
Mix
of t
arge
ted
and
univ
ersa
l int
erve
ntion
s in
met
a-an
alys
is w
ere
sepa
rate
d fo
r com
paris
on.
(Cou
ld u
se to
add
ress
un
iver
sal-a
ppro
ach
conc
erns
)Al
l but
2 st
udie
s wer
e ra
ted
as h
igh
risk
for o
vera
ll bi
as,
larg
ely
due
to h
igh
risk
of
perf
orm
ance
bia
s sin
ce
blin
ding
par
ticip
ants
was
di
fficu
lt an
d se
lf-re
port
m
easu
res a
re c
omm
only
us
ed.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: P
oole
d m
eta-
anal
ysis,
cod
ed
into
eith
er m
iddl
e sc
hool
(MS)
or h
igh
scho
ol (H
S).
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: O
vera
ll, th
is st
udy
foun
d th
at p
rogr
ams
aim
ed a
t red
ucin
g de
pres
sion
and
/or a
nxie
ty d
isor
ders
in
ado
lesc
ents
are
gen
eral
ly e
ffecti
ve, h
owev
er, p
rogr
ams
for s
tres
s red
uctio
n ar
e no
t. Pr
ogra
m ty
pe in
fluen
ced
prog
ram
effi
cacy
for s
tres
s, a
nxie
ty, a
nd d
epre
ssio
n.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
All
but 7
pro
gram
s w
ere
trad
ition
al th
erap
y pr
ogra
ms (
e.g.
, CBT
-bas
ed, s
tres
s in
ocul
ation
)
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Aca
dem
ic
Sear
ch P
rem
iere
, ERI
C, P
sycI
NFO
, and
Ps
ycAR
TICL
ES.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
St
ress
: Ove
rall,
stre
ss re
ducti
on in
terv
entio
ns d
id n
ot
redu
ce st
ress
sym
ptom
s com
pare
d to
con
trol
gro
ups.
Ta
rget
ed in
terv
entio
ns d
id sh
ow g
reat
er re
ducti
ons i
n st
ress
than
uni
vers
al p
rogr
ams.
Age
cou
ld n
ot b
e in
clud
ed
in a
step
wise
regr
essio
n as
non
e of
the
4 st
udie
s inc
lude
d M
S pa
rtici
pant
s.
Anxi
ety:
Anx
iety
redu
ction
inte
rven
tions
sign
ifica
ntly
re
duce
d an
xiet
y sy
mpt
oms c
ompa
red
to c
ontr
ol g
roup
s.
How
ever
no
diffe
renc
es in
anx
iety
sym
ptom
s wer
e ob
serv
ed a
t 3-6
mon
th fo
llow
-up
for t
he 6
stud
ies t
hat
incl
uded
follo
w-u
p da
ta. F
or u
nive
rsal
inte
rven
tions
hi
gher
dos
e w
as a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith a
gre
ater
redu
ction
in
anxi
ety.
De
pres
sion:
Dep
ress
ion
inte
rven
tions
sign
ifica
ntly
re
duce
d de
pres
sive
sym
ptom
s com
pare
d to
con
trol
gr
oups
, how
ever
in th
e 17
stud
ies i
nclu
ding
3-8
mon
th
follo
w-u
p no
diff
eren
ces w
ere
obse
rved
at f
ollo
w-
up. A
dditi
onal
ly, th
is re
ducti
on w
as m
oder
ated
by
a co
mbi
natio
n of
pro
gram
type
, dos
e, ra
ce, a
nd a
ge g
roup
.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
Stre
ss in
ocul
ation
pro
gram
, Lea
rnin
g to
BRE
ATH
min
dful
ness
pro
gram
, tra
ditio
nal g
roup
ther
apy
met
hods
(e.g
., CB
T), a
ltern
ative
gro
up th
erap
y m
etho
ds (e
.g.,
med
itatio
n, h
olisti
c in
terv
entio
ns),
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es in
clud
ed
mus
t ass
ess a
scho
ol-b
ased
men
tal
heal
th p
rogr
am in
U.S
. mid
dle
and
high
sc
hool
setti
ngs a
imed
at r
educ
ing
stre
ss,
depr
essio
n/de
pres
sive
sym
ptom
s, a
nxie
ty,
or o
ther
inte
rnal
izing
men
tal h
ealth
-re
late
d pr
oble
ms.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Mea
sure
s of s
tres
s (4
of 4
2), a
nxie
ty (2
0 0f
42)
, and
de
pres
sion/
depr
essiv
e sy
mpt
oms (
38 o
f 42)
.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Rev
iew
s, e
pide
mio
logy
ar
ticle
s, n
on-p
eer r
evie
wed
arti
cles
, and
st
udie
s tha
t om
itted
bas
elin
e an
d/or
po
sttes
t sco
res w
ere
excl
uded
.

79
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es:
Perc
eive
d St
ress
Sca
le (P
SS),
Stat
e-Tr
ait A
nxie
ty In
dex
(STA
I) su
bsca
les,
You
th S
elf-R
epor
t (YS
R) d
epre
ssio
n sc
ales
, Chi
ldre
n’s
Depr
essio
n In
vent
ory
(CDI
), Ce
nter
for E
pide
mio
logi
cal S
tudi
es
Depr
essio
n Sc
ale
(CES
-D),
Beha
vior
Ass
essm
ent S
yste
m fo
r Ch
ildre
n (B
ASC)
anx
iety
scal
es, B
rief S
ympt
om In
vent
ory
(BSI
) anx
iety
and
dep
ress
ion
scal
es, S
hort
Moo
d &
Fee
ling
ques
tionn
aire
(SM
FQ),
Moo
d an
d Fe
elin
g Q
uesti
onna
ire
(MFQ
), Re
vise
d Ch
ildre
n’s M
anife
st A
nxie
ty S
cale
(RCM
AS),
Scre
en fo
r Chi
ld A
nxie
ty R
elat
ed D
isord
ers (
SCAR
ED),
Reyn
olds
Ad
oles
cent
Dep
ress
ion
Scal
e (R
ADS)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
sCo
untr
y(ie
s): U
.SSt
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s): N
/ALe
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Scho
ol, I
ndiv
idua
l

80
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
13. G
wyt
her
K, S
wan
n R
, Cas
sey
K, P
urce
ll R
, Ric
e S
M. D
evel
op
ing
Yo
ung
Men
’s W
ellb
eing
Thr
oug
h C
om
mun
ity
and
Sch
oo
l-b
ased
Pro
gra
ms:
A S
yste
mat
ic R
evie
w. P
LoS
ON
E [
Inte
rnet
]. 2
019
May
20
[ci
ted
201
9 A
ug 1
]; 1
4(5)
:e02
1695
5. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
jour
nals
.plo
s.o
rg/p
loso
ne/a
rtic
le?i
d=
10.1
371/
jour
nal.p
one
.021
6955
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
you
ng m
ales
age
d 12
-25
year
s.Da
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: F
irst y
ear o
f da
taba
se a
vaila
bilit
y –
2018
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
40
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: M
ale-
targ
eted
inte
rven
tions
may
be
mor
e be
nefic
ial f
or y
oung
men
7 than
gen
der-n
eutr
al
prog
ram
s; h
owev
er, n
one
of th
e st
udie
s inc
orpo
rate
d m
ascu
line-
spec
ific
theo
ry. 1
00%
of G
SP a
nd G
TPs
repo
rted
at l
east
one
pos
itive
effe
ct. 6
9% o
f GN
Ps
repo
rted
at l
east
one
pos
itive
effe
ct.
GTP:
Eac
h of
the
four
GTP
s rep
orte
d so
me
positi
ve
chan
ges i
n pa
rtici
pant
s pos
t-pro
gram
. The
Cou
ncil
was
th
e on
ly G
TP to
repo
rt q
uanti
tativ
e ou
tcom
es, w
ith
signi
fican
t pos
itive
inte
rven
tion
effec
ts o
bser
ved
for
scho
ol se
lf-effi
cacy
and
futu
re se
lf-effi
cacy
. For
the
Coun
cil,
no c
hang
es w
ere
foun
d fo
r mas
culin
e id
eolo
gy,
rela
tiona
l agg
ress
ion,
or i
denti
ty d
istr
ess.
Com
men
ts
from
par
ticip
ants
in th
e YM
I, TR
J, an
d RW
P su
gges
t the
pr
ogra
ms w
ere
effec
tive
for r
educ
ing
ange
r, in
crea
sing
se
lf-re
flecti
on, a
nd re
shap
ing
perc
eptio
n ab
out ‘
bein
g a
man
’. GS
P: A
ll 7
mal
e-sp
ecifi
c in
terv
entio
ns re
port
ed a
t lea
st 1
be
nefic
ial o
utco
me.
HEY
MAN
repo
rted
incr
ease
d qu
ality
of
life
enj
oym
ent a
nd sa
tisfa
ction
at p
ost-p
rogr
am,
ATLA
S re
port
ed in
crea
sed
psyc
holo
gica
l wel
lbei
ng
post
-pro
gram
, HBI
P pa
rtici
pant
s with
initi
al b
ody
diss
atisf
actio
n sh
owed
a si
gnifi
cant
redu
ction
in n
egati
ve
affec
t pos
t-pro
gram
(Sta
nfor
d an
d M
cCab
e’s b
ody
imag
e pr
ogra
m a
lso re
port
ed d
ecre
ased
neg
ative
affe
ct a
s wel
l as
incr
ease
d se
lf-es
teem
), Pa
rtici
pant
s in
the
OBB
C sa
w
signi
fican
t im
prov
emen
ts in
ove
rall
self-
este
em a
nd
acad
emic
self-
este
em, R
OC
and
Inco
link
foun
d po
sitive
ou
tcom
es fo
r hel
p-se
ekin
g ou
tcom
es (R
OC
parti
cipa
nts
repo
rted
incr
ease
d lik
elih
ood
to se
ek h
elp
post
-pro
gram
an
d ap
prox
imat
ely
80%
of p
artic
ipan
ts in
Inco
link
indi
cate
d in
crea
sed
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
how
to id
entif
y an
d se
ek h
elp
for p
robl
ems i
n th
emse
lves
and
oth
ers)
. GN
P: in
9 G
NPs
with
mal
e-on
ly sa
mpl
es, 8
repo
rted
po
sitiv
e eff
ects
for a
t lea
st o
ne o
utco
me.
Tw
o ou
tdoo
r ad
vent
ure
prog
ram
s rep
orte
d sig
nific
ant i
ncre
ase
in
self-
effica
cy a
nd c
ogni
tive
auto
nom
y, a
nd e
moti
onal
in
telli
genc
e, in
trap
erso
nal s
kills
, ada
ptab
ility
, and
m
ood.
1 sp
ortin
g pr
ogra
m (o
f 2) s
how
ed p
rom
ising
qu
alita
tive
resu
lts w
here
par
ticip
ants
repo
rted
incr
ease
d co
mpe
tenc
e. T
he o
ther
spor
ting
prog
ram
repo
rted
sig
nific
ant q
uanti
tativ
e in
terv
entio
n eff
ects
for r
educ
ed
depr
essi
ve sy
mpt
oms f
ollo
win
g th
e in
terv
entio
n. F
or
1 eH
ealth
inte
rven
tion
(of 2
), sig
nific
ant s
hort
-term
im
prov
emen
ts in
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s and
a lo
ng te
rm
inte
rven
tion
effec
t for
self-
este
em w
ere
obse
rved
. In
the
othe
r, a
prev
enta
tive
effec
t in
dist
ress
sym
ptom
s (w
here
the
inte
rven
tion
grou
p ha
d a
non-
signi
fican
t de
crea
se in
dist
ress
and
the
cont
rol s
how
ed a
sign
ifica
nt
incr
ease
) was
obs
erve
d. O
ne m
indf
ulne
ss in
terv
entio
n re
port
ed si
gnifi
cant
redu
ction
s in
anxi
ety
sym
ptom
s and
ru
min
ation
. One
men
torin
g pr
ogra
m c
onve
yed
positi
ve
qual
itativ
e ou
tcom
es, w
ith p
artic
ipan
ts se
lf-re
porti
ng
decr
ease
d ag
gres
sion
and
incr
ease
d m
otiva
tion.
Th
e re
mai
ning
17
artic
les e
valu
ated
GN
Ps in
mix
ed-
gend
er sa
mpl
es. 7
pro
gram
s fou
nd p
ositi
ve c
hang
es
in m
ostly
mal
es. T
wo
psyc
hoed
ucati
onal
pro
gram
s im
prov
ed m
enta
l hea
lth, a
nd se
lf-effi
cacy
and
opti
mism
. O
ne m
indf
ulne
ss p
rogr
am a
nd o
ne c
omm
unity
serv
ice
prog
ram
repo
rted
redu
ced
nega
tive
affec
t. An
em
otion
al
inte
llige
nce
inte
rven
tion
repo
rted
incr
ease
d em
otion
al
atten
tion
and
clar
ity. A
cul
tura
lly-r
elev
ant e
Heal
th
prog
ram
repo
rted
incr
ease
d in
tere
st in
div
ersit
y of
co
ntac
t. O
ne sp
ort p
rogr
am in
crea
sed
asse
rtive
ness
.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: T
he h
eter
ogen
eity
of s
tudy
ch
arac
teris
tics p
reve
nted
a m
eta-
anal
ysis
or th
e as
sess
men
t of p
ublic
ation
bia
s. F
ew st
udie
s use
d m
eans
of a
ctua
lly m
easu
ring
mas
culin
e id
eolo
gy (t
he
auth
or st
ates
ther
e ar
e no
w a
t lea
st 1
6 va
lidat
ed
scal
es o
n th
e su
bjec
t). T
he m
ajor
ity o
f stu
dies
did
not
m
easu
re lo
ng-te
rm fo
llow
-up.
Thi
s patt
ern
of sh
ort-
term
, one
-off
inte
rven
tion
eval
uatio
n re
sults
in a
la
ck o
f effe
ct re
plic
ation
and
no
evid
ence
of p
rogr
am
enha
ncem
ent.
With
out r
epea
ting
eval
uatio
ns it
can
not
be d
eter
min
ed w
heth
er p
rogr
ams a
re re
liabl
y eff
ectiv
e.
This
artic
le d
id n
ot
prov
ide
indi
vidu
al st
udy
brea
k do
wn,
mak
ing
iden
tifyi
ng a
ge g
roup
s fo
r eac
h st
udy
diffi
cult
thou
gh it
app
ears
all
invo
lved
mal
es th
at w
ere
in o
ur ta
rget
dem
ogra
phic
(m
ean
and
med
ian
age
of
sam
ple
wer
e 15
and
15.
5 re
spec
tivel
y).
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: C
ould
not
det
erm
ine
age
of sa
mpl
e fo
r eac
h st
udy,
thou
gh th
e m
ean
and
med
ian
age
for a
ll st
udy
sam
ples
(8,2
90 p
artic
ipan
ts) a
t the
beg
inni
ng o
f in
terv
entio
n is
15 a
nd 1
5.5
resp
ectiv
ely.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: MED
LIN
E,
Emba
se, P
sycI
NFO
, ERI
C, a
nd E
RAD.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Gen
der-T
rans
form
ative
Pr
ogra
ms (
GTP)
, Gen
der-S
ensiti
ve P
rogr
ams (
GSP)
, Gen
der-
Neu
tral
Pro
gram
s (GN
P).
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
GTP:
Roc
k an
d W
ater
Pro
gram
(RW
P), T
he C
ounc
il fo
r Boy
s and
Yo
ung
Men
(The
Cou
ncil)
, You
ng M
en In
itiati
ve (Y
MI),
The
Rite
Jo
urne
y (T
RJ).
GSP:
Acti
ve Te
en L
eade
rs A
void
ing
Scre
en T
ime
(ATL
AS),
Harn
essin
g EH
ealth
to e
nhan
ce Y
oung
men
’s M
enta
l hea
lth,
Activ
ity, a
nd N
utriti
on (H
EYM
AN),
Heal
thy
Body
Imag
e Pr
ogra
m (H
BIP)
, unn
amed
bod
y im
age
educ
ation
pro
gram
by
Stan
ford
and
McC
abe
(Sta
nfor
d &
McC
abe,
200
5), R
each
Out
Ce
ntra
l (RO
C), I
ncol
ink
Life
Ski
lls P
rogr
amm
e (IL
SP),
Out
war
d Bo
und
Brid
ging
Cou
rse
(OBB
C)GN
P: m
ento
ring
or c
omm
unity
serv
ice,
psy
choe
duca
tion,
ph
ysic
al a
ctivi
ty o
r spo
rt, e
Heal
th in
terv
entio
ns, o
utdo
or
adve
ntur
e pr
ogra
ms,
min
dful
ness
and
med
itatio
n pr
ogra
ms,
em
otion
al in
telli
genc
e in
terv
entio
ns, b
ody
imag
e pr
ogra
m.
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: A
rticl
es w
ere
incl
uded
if
they
eva
luat
ed a
n in
terv
entio
n or
pro
gram
w
ith a
gen
eral
or a
t-risk
8 sam
ple
of y
oung
m
en (m
ean
age
betw
een
12-2
5 ye
ars a
t be
ginn
ing
of in
terv
entio
n), a
nd m
easu
red
a ps
ycho
logi
cal,
psyc
hoso
cial
, mas
culin
ity, o
r ed
ucati
onal
out
com
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: GT
P: sc
hool
self-
effica
cy, f
utur
e se
lf-effi
cacy
, rel
ation
al
aggr
essio
n, id
entit
y di
stre
ss, a
nger
, sel
f-refl
ectio
n, p
erce
ption
s ab
out ‘
bein
g a
man
’. GS
P: q
ualit
y of
life
enj
oym
ent a
nd sa
tisfa
ction
, psy
chol
ogic
al
wel
lbei
ng, n
egati
ve a
ffect
, sel
f-est
eem
, aca
dem
ic se
lf-es
teem
, he
lp-s
eeki
ng o
utco
mes
. GN
P: se
lf-effi
cacy
and
cog
nitiv
e au
tono
my,
emoti
onal
in
telli
genc
e, in
trap
erso
nal s
kills
, ada
ptab
ility
, moo
d, se
nse
of c
ompe
tenc
e, d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms,
self-
este
em, d
istre
ss
sym
ptom
s, a
nxie
ty sy
mpt
oms a
nd ru
min
ation
, agg
ress
ion,
m
otiva
tion,
men
tal h
ealth
, opti
mism
, neg
ative
affe
ct,
emoti
onal
atte
ntion
and
cla
rity,
ass
ertiv
enes
s, m
enta
l hea
lth
liter
acy,
men
tal h
ealth
pre
judi
ce.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Arti
cles
wer
e ex
clud
ed
if th
ey 1
) had
an
all-f
emal
e sa
mpl
e 2)
fo
cuse
d on
you
th o
ffend
ers,
clin
ical
or
out-p
atien
t sam
ples
3) w
ere
case
stud
ies 4
) us
ed b
iolo
gica
l, m
edic
al, o
r sup
plem
enta
ry
inte
rven
tions
5) a
sses
sed
outc
ome
varia
bles
rela
ted
to re
prod
uctiv
e he
alth
be
havi
ors,
par
tner
vio
lenc
e, su
bsta
nce
use,
phy
sical
hea
lth, s
mok
ing
and
prog
ram
fe
edba
ck o
nly.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: (
See
abov
e)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
GT
P: M
ascu
line
ideo
logy
GNP:
inte
rest
in d
iver
sity
of c
onta
ct

81
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Setti
ng(s
): Se
cond
ary
scho
ol, c
omm
unity
, uni
vers
ity, o
nlin
e,
mix
edCo
untr
y(ie
s): M
ajor
ity O
ECD
coun
trie
s (sp
ecifi
cally
Aus
tral
ia
and
U.S.
)St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s): N
/ALe
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Scho
ol, C
omm
unity
, Ind
ivid
ual
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(See
abo
ve)

82
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
14. J
ano
usko
va M
, Tus
kova
E, W
eiss
ova
A, T
ranc
ik P
, Pas
z J,
Eva
ns-L
acko
S, W
inkl
er P
. Can
vid
eo in
terv
enti
ons
be
used
to
eff
ecti
vely
des
tig
mat
ize
men
tal i
llnes
s am
ong
yo
ung
peo
ple
? A
sy
stem
atic
rev
iew
. Eur
op
ean
Psy
chia
try
[Int
erne
t]. 2
017
Mar
[ci
ted
201
9 Ju
ly 2
6]; 4
1:1-
9. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
ww
w.n
cbi.n
lm.n
ih.g
ov/
pub
med
/280
4907
4FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
stud
ents
age
s 13-
25
year
s old
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: No
excl
usio
n ba
sed
on d
ate
of p
ublic
ation
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
23
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: S
econ
dary
scho
ol st
uden
ts
(13-
18 y
ears
old
) (Ch
an e
t al.,
200
9), S
econ
dary
scho
ol
stud
ents
(mea
n ag
e 14
.7 y
ears
old
) (Es
ters
et a
l., 1
998)
, Se
cond
ary
scho
ol st
uden
ts (1
3-17
yea
rs o
ld) (
Pint
o-Fo
ltz e
t al.,
20
11),
Seco
ndar
y sc
hool
stud
ents
(mea
n ag
e 15
.76
year
s old
) (S
apor
ito e
t al.,
201
1).
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s:
Vide
o w
as fo
und
to b
e m
ore
effec
tive
than
oth
er
inte
rven
tions
(e.g
., fa
ce to
face
sim
ulati
on o
f ha
lluci
natio
ns).
Soci
al c
onta
ct d
eliv
ered
via
vid
eo
inte
rven
tion
achi
eved
sim
ilar e
ffect
to li
ve in
terv
entio
n.
Ove
rall,
vid
eo c
onsid
ered
pro
misi
ng.
Not
abl
e to
synt
hesiz
e da
ta m
eta-
anal
ytica
lly b
ecau
se
the
stud
ies s
how
ed su
bsta
ntial
het
erog
enei
ty in
term
s of
leng
th a
nd c
onte
nt o
f the
vid
eo in
terv
entio
ns, a
s w
ell a
s in
term
s of t
ools
to m
easu
re e
ffecti
vene
ss o
f th
ese
inte
rven
tions
. Inc
lusio
n of
stud
ies r
epor
ted
in
Engl
ish o
nly
mig
ht h
ave
had
furt
her l
imite
d re
sults
. Al
so, d
ata
extr
actio
n an
d qu
ality
ass
essm
ent w
as
perf
orm
ed b
y on
e au
thor
for e
ach
of th
e st
udie
s on
ly, so
aut
hors
wer
e no
t abl
e to
look
at p
ossib
le
disc
repa
ncie
s and
det
erm
ine
inte
r-rat
er re
liabi
lity.
Ho
wev
er, a
utho
rs in
volv
ed in
dat
a ex
trac
tion
and
qual
ity a
sses
smen
t sha
re a
com
mon
wor
kpla
ce a
nd
all a
mbi
guiti
es w
ere
disc
usse
d in
stan
tly a
mon
g th
em.
Non
e of
the
23 st
udie
s con
duct
ed in
a lo
w- o
r mid
dle-
inco
me
coun
try.
Al
l int
erve
ntion
s occ
urre
d in
scho
ols.
By A
H: R
isk o
f sel
ectio
n an
d att
rition
bia
s was
co
nsid
erab
le, e
xter
nal
valid
ity n
ot d
iscus
sed,
low
or
unr
ecor
ded
resp
onse
ra
tes
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Vid
eo in
terv
entio
ns
aim
ed a
t red
ucin
g sti
gma
tow
ards
peo
ple
with
men
tal
illne
sses
(gen
eral
ly a
s par
t of a
bro
ader
gro
up o
f mas
s med
ia
inte
rven
tions
, edu
catio
nal i
nter
venti
ons,
scho
ol-b
ased
in
terv
entio
ns, a
nd a
nti-s
tigm
a in
terv
entio
ns).
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: MED
LIN
E,
ERIC
, Aca
dem
ic S
earc
h Co
mpl
ete,
Co
chra
ne (t
rials)
, Coc
hran
e (r
evie
ws)
, Ope
n SI
GLE
(gre
y lit
erat
ure)
, Web
of K
now
ledg
e,
EMBA
SE, H
ealth
Man
agem
ent I
nfor
mati
on
Cons
ortiu
m, P
sycI
NFO
, Pro
Que
st,
Soci
al P
olic
y &
Pra
ctice
, and
Wor
ldCa
t di
sser
tatio
n.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18-y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
Docu
men
tary
inte
rven
tion
(one
arm
: ed
ucati
on th
en d
ocum
enta
ry. S
econ
d ar
m: D
ocum
enta
ry th
en
educ
ation
) (Ch
an e
t al.,
200
9), E
duca
tion
inte
rven
tion
(Est
ers
et a
l., 1
998)
, Liv
e ta
lk in
terv
entio
n (w
ith e
duca
tion
+ di
rect
co
ntac
t) (P
into
-Fol
tz e
t al.,
201
1), D
ocum
enta
ry in
terv
entio
n (w
ith e
duca
tion)
(Sap
orito
et a
l., 2
011)
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es in
clud
ed m
ust a
sses
s sc
hool
-bas
ed in
terv
entio
ns in
clud
ing
at
leas
t one
vid
eo-b
ased
com
pone
nt a
nd
focu
sed
on m
enta
l illn
ess o
r the
mes
clo
sely
co
nnec
ted
to m
enta
l hea
lth. S
tudi
es th
at
incl
uded
par
ticip
ants
old
er o
r you
nger
th
an th
e de
sired
age
rang
e (1
3-25
) wer
e in
clud
ed if
the
mea
n ag
e ra
nge
of th
e sa
mpl
e w
as w
ithin
the
desir
ed ra
nge.
The
in
terv
entio
n al
so h
ad to
aim
at r
educ
ing
stigm
a to
war
ds p
eopl
e w
ith m
enta
l illn
ess.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PS
EWB
outc
omes
: Cod
ed o
utco
mes
of i
ndiv
idua
l stu
dies
into
7
cate
gorie
s: k
now
ledg
e ab
out e
tiolo
gy, c
hara
cter
of p
eopl
e ha
ving
men
tal i
llnes
s, a
nd p
ossib
le tr
eatm
ent;
soci
al d
istan
ce;
repo
rted
em
otion
al re
actio
n; p
erce
ived
dan
gero
usne
ss;
com
bina
tion
of th
e ab
ove
men
tione
d di
men
sions
(gen
eral
atti
tude
s); a
ttitu
des t
owar
d he
lp se
ekin
g w
hile
hav
ing
men
tal
illne
ss; o
utco
mes
mea
surin
g ac
tual
beh
avio
ur to
war
d so
meo
ne
with
men
tal i
llnes
s.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Stu
dies
wer
e ex
clud
ed if
th
ey fa
iled
to m
eet t
he in
clus
ion
crite
ria
deta
iled
abov
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
-yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: (
see
abov
e)
Guid
ance
use
d to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18-
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A

83
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Setti
ng(s
): Vi
deo
inte
rven
tions
wer
e on
ly d
eliv
ered
as p
art o
f ed
ucati
onal
inte
rven
tions
in sc
hool
setti
ngs
Coun
try(
ies)
: US,
Eur
ope,
Chi
na, A
ustr
alia
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er co
untr
ies)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Scho
olT
EE
N-S
PE
CIF
IC F
IND
ING
S
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Chan
et a
l., 2
009
Seco
ndar
y sc
hool
stud
ents
(13-
18 y
ears
ol
d)Do
cum
enta
ry in
terv
entio
n (o
ne a
rm: e
duca
tion
then
doc
umen
tary
. Sec
ond
arm
: Doc
umen
tary
then
ed
ucati
on)
In th
e ed
ucati
on-v
ideo
gro
up, t
here
wer
e sig
nific
antly
po
sitiv
e eff
ects
on
know
ledg
e ab
out e
tiolo
gy,
char
acte
r of p
eopl
e w
ith m
enta
l illn
ess a
nd p
ossi
ble
trea
tmen
t obs
erve
d at
pos
t-tes
t and
follo
w-u
p w
hen
com
pare
d to
the
educ
ation
con
trol
gro
up. T
here
wer
e al
so si
gnifi
cant
ly p
ositi
ve e
ffect
s obs
erve
d on
soci
al
dist
ance
at p
ost-t
est a
nd fo
llow
-up
whe
n co
mpa
red
to
the
educ
ation
-onl
y co
ntro
l gro
up. S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
eff
ects
on
gene
ral a
ttitu
des/
attrib
utes
tow
ards
peo
ple
with
men
tal i
llnes
s wer
e ob
serv
ed a
t pos
t-tes
t, bu
t no
t at f
ollo
w-u
p w
hen
com
pare
d to
the
educ
ation
-onl
y gr
oup.
In
the
vide
o-ed
ucati
on g
roup
, no
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
s w
ere
obse
rved
on
know
ledg
e ab
out e
tiolo
gy,
char
acte
r of p
eopl
e w
ith m
enta
l illn
ess a
nd p
ossi
ble
trea
tmen
t obs
erve
d at
pos
t-tes
t or f
ollo
w-u
p w
hen
com
pare
d to
the
educ
ation
-onl
y co
ntro
l gro
up. T
here
w
as a
sign
ifica
ntly
pos
itive
effe
ct o
bser
ved
on so
cial
di
stan
ce a
t pos
t-tes
t whe
n co
mpa
red
to th
e co
ntro
l, bu
t thi
s effe
ct w
as lo
st a
t fol
low
-up.
No
signi
fican
t eff
ects
on
gene
ral a
ttitu
des/
attrib
utes
tow
ards
peo
ple
with
men
tal i
llnes
s wer
e ob
serv
ed a
t pos
t-tes
t or
follo
w-u
p w
hen
com
pare
d to
the
cont
rol g
roup
.
Este
rs e
t al.,
199
8Se
cond
ary
scho
ol st
uden
ts (m
ean
age
14.7
ye
ars o
ld)
Educ
ation
inte
rven
tion
Sign
ifica
ntly
pos
itive
effe
cts a
t pos
t-tes
t and
follo
w-u
p on
kno
wle
dge
abou
t etio
logy
, cha
ract
er o
f peo
ple
with
m
enta
l illn
ess a
nd p
ossi
ble
trea
tmen
t whe
n co
mpa
red
with
con
trol
. Sig
nific
antly
pos
itive
effe
cts a
t pos
t-tes
t an
d fo
llow
-up
on a
ttitu
des t
owar
ds h
elp-
seek
ing
whe
n co
mpa
red
with
con
trol
.
Pint
o-Fo
ltz e
t al.,
201
1Se
cond
ary
scho
ol st
uden
ts (1
3-17
yea
rs
old)
Live
talk
inte
rven
tion
(with
edu
catio
n +
dire
ct c
onta
ct)
No
sign
ifica
nt p
ositi
ve e
ffect
on
know
ledg
e ab
out
etiol
ogy,
cha
ract
er o
f peo
ple
with
men
tal i
llnes
s and
po
ssib
le tr
eatm
ent a
t pos
t-tes
t whe
n co
mpa
red
with
co
ntro
l but
sign
ifica
nt p
ositi
ve e
ffect
s wer
e fo
und
at
follo
w-u
p w
hen
com
pare
d to
con
trol
. No
repo
rted
sig
nific
ant p
ositi
ve e
ffect
on
repo
rted
em
otion
al
reac
tion
to m
enta
l illn
ess a
t pos
t-tes
t or f
ollo
w-u
p w
hen
com
pare
d to
con
trol
gro
up.
Auth
or in
dica
tes t
he la
ck
of st
atisti
cal s
igni
fican
ce
in o
utco
me
in “
repo
rted
em
otion
al re
actio
n to
m
enta
l illn
ess”
(in
the
indi
vidu
al st
udy
labe
led
as
“red
ucin
g m
enta
l illn
ess
stigm
a) w
as li
kely
due
to
a la
ck o
f pow
er to
det
ect
an e
ffect
. Sam
ple
size
to
adeq
uate
ly p
ower
the
stud
y w
as n
=100
0.
Sapo
rito
et a
l., 2
011
Seco
ndar
y sc
hool
stud
ents
(mea
n ag
e 15
.76
year
s old
)Do
cum
enta
ry in
terv
entio
n (w
ith e
duca
tion)
No
sign
ifica
nt p
ositi
ve e
ffect
on
know
ledg
e ab
out
etiol
ogy,
cha
ract
er o
f peo
ple
with
men
tal i
llnes
s an
d po
ssib
le tr
eatm
ent (
no fo
llow
-up
data
col
lect
ed)
whe
n co
mpa
red
to c
ontr
ol. S
igni
fican
t pos
itive
effe
cts
reco
rded
on
gene
ral a
ttitu
des/
attrib
utes
tow
ards
pe
ople
with
men
tal i
llnes
s at p
ost-t
est (
no fo
llow
-up
data
col
lect
ed) w
hen
com
pare
d to
con
trol
. Mix
ed
findi
ngs a
cros
s mea
sure
s of a
ttitu
des t
owar
ds h
elp-
seek
ing
acro
ss m
ultip
le m
easu
res (
two
signi
fican
t po
sitive
effe
cts,
one
non
-sig
nific
ant e
ffect
) whe
n co
mpa
red
to c
ontr
ol g
roup
at p
ost-t
est (
no fo
llow
-up
colle
cted
). N
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
on
actu
al b
ehav
ior w
as
obse
rved
at p
ost-t
est (
no fo
llow
-up
data
col
lect
ed).

84
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
15. K
enne
dy
H, D
eCha
nts
J, B
end
er K
, Any
on
Y. M
ore
tha
n D
ata
Co
llect
ors
: A S
yste
mat
ic R
evie
w o
f th
e E
nvir
onm
enta
l Out
com
es o
f Yo
uth
Inq
uiry
Ap
pro
ache
s in
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes.
Am
eric
an
Jour
nal o
f C
om
mun
ity
Psy
cho
log
y [I
nter
net]
. 201
9 M
ar 6
[ci
ted
201
9 A
ug 2
0]; 6
3(1-
2):2
08-2
26. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
onl
inel
ibra
ry.w
iley.
com
/do
i/fu
ll/10
.100
2/aj
cp.1
2321
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
chi
ldre
n an
d yo
uth
25 y
ears
and
you
nger
, sta
ff an
d st
ruct
ures
invo
lved
in y
outh
in
quiry
.
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 199
5-20
15#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 3
6 do
cum
ente
d en
viro
nmen
tal
outc
omes
, rep
rese
nting
57.
1% o
f tot
al sa
mpl
e of
you
th
inqu
iry st
udie
s.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: T
his s
tudy
was
lim
ited
to
peer
-rev
iew
ed st
udie
s and
did
not
incl
ude
any
gray
lit
erat
ure
or b
ook
chap
ters
, exc
ludi
ng p
oten
tially
re
leva
nt w
ork
repo
rted
in n
on-p
eer r
evie
wed
sour
ces,
su
ch a
s rep
orts
on
agen
cy w
ebsit
es. T
he e
xclu
sion
of
othe
r diss
emin
ation
mec
hani
sms l
ikel
y re
sulte
d in
an
unde
rrep
ortin
g of
env
ironm
enta
l out
com
es a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith y
outh
inqu
iry a
ppro
ache
s. A
utho
rs d
id n
ot a
sses
s ris
k of
bia
s in
stud
ies i
nclu
ded
in re
view
. Giv
en th
e la
ck
of d
etai
led
info
rmati
on a
bout
ana
lytic
al a
ppro
ache
s in
man
y m
anus
crip
ts, a
utho
rs w
ere
only
abl
e to
gro
up
stud
ies b
y re
sear
ch d
esig
n an
d w
ere
ther
efor
e un
able
to
dra
w m
ore
deta
iled
conc
lusio
ns o
r hig
hlig
ht so
me
of th
e in
nova
tive
appr
oach
es in
the
sam
ple.
Thi
s may
ha
ve sk
ewed
resu
lts, a
s stu
dies
that
pro
vide
d m
ore
syst
emati
c de
scrip
tions
of t
heir
met
hods
may
hav
e be
en d
iffer
ent f
rom
thos
e w
ho d
o no
t in
way
s tha
t we
coul
d no
t mea
sure
.
Stud
ies u
sed
mos
tly
qual
itativ
e m
etho
ds
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: N
/A
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Pub
Med
, ER
IC, S
ocia
l Ser
vice
Abs
trac
ts, P
sycI
NFO
. Hi
-Lev
el F
indi
ngs:
Stu
dies
of y
outh
inqu
ity a
ppro
ache
s in
the
U.S.
hav
e re
port
ed p
ositi
ve, a
nd in
man
y ca
ses,
la
sting
, cha
nges
in th
eir e
nviro
nmen
ts, i
nclu
ding
sc
hool
s, n
eigh
borh
oods
, and
com
mun
ities
. Adu
lts
lear
ned
to v
alue
you
th a
s exp
erts
in th
eir o
wn
lives
and
vi
ewed
them
as i
mpo
rtan
t sta
keho
lder
s in
scho
ol a
nd
com
mun
ity-le
vel d
ecisi
on-m
akin
g. F
ive
artic
les r
epor
ted
that
adu
lts h
ad a
n in
crea
sed
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
expe
rienc
es a
nd n
eeds
of d
iver
se y
outh
bec
ause
of t
he
proj
ect;
spec
ifica
lly, a
dults
wer
e m
ore
will
ing
to e
ngag
e in
div
ersit
y-re
late
d di
scus
sions
with
you
ng p
eopl
e at
sc
hool
. Rel
ation
ship
s bet
wee
n st
uden
ts a
nd te
ache
rs
wer
e im
prov
ed a
nd a
dults
des
crib
ed e
ngag
ing
in m
ore
refle
xivi
ty re
gard
ing
pow
er d
ynam
ics b
etw
een
yout
h an
d ad
ults
.Se
vera
l stu
dies
repo
rted
form
alizi
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties f
or
yout
h vo
ice
into
scho
ol a
nd c
omm
unity
setti
ngs.
Rese
arch
-rel
ated
ben
efits
incl
uded
a w
ide
rang
e of
im
prov
emen
ts to
the
proc
ess o
f doi
ng re
sear
ch a
nd
the
qual
ity o
f the
info
rmati
on u
ncov
ered
. Par
tner
ing
with
you
th fo
r res
earc
h al
so c
halle
nged
dom
inan
t re
sear
ch p
arad
igm
s, in
tegr
ating
acti
vism
rath
er th
an
only
prio
ritizin
g ob
jecti
vity
and
cha
ngin
g pe
rspe
ctive
s of
rese
arch
as s
omet
hing
that
is d
one
to y
outh
to
som
ethi
ng th
at is
don
e w
ith th
em.
Four
teen
per
cent
of s
tudi
es re
port
ed th
at o
ne o
r mor
e po
licie
s had
bee
n ad
opte
d as
a re
sult
of e
ngag
ing
with
yo
uth
in in
quiry
, at t
he sc
hool
dist
rict l
evel
, city
-leve
l (p
olic
y ch
ange
s: in
clud
ing
the
addi
tion
of tw
o bu
s rou
tes
to fa
cilit
ate
easy
acc
ess t
o re
crea
tion
faci
lities
.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
You
th in
quiry
ap
proa
ches
like
YPA
R, y
outh
org
anizi
ng, s
tude
nt v
oice
.Yo
uth
inqu
iry a
ppro
ache
s wer
e de
fined
as a
n el
emen
t of
orga
nize
d gr
oups
whe
re y
outh
par
ticip
ants
met
regu
larly
and
ha
d a
com
mon
pur
pose
.
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es m
ust b
e em
piric
al re
sear
ch p
ublis
hed
in p
eer-
revi
ewed
jour
nals
and
cond
ucte
d in
th
e U
nite
d St
ates
. Stu
dies
mus
t inc
lude
pr
ojec
t par
ticip
ants
of c
hild
ren
or y
outh
25
yea
rs o
r you
nger
. Stu
dies
mus
t also
in
volv
e an
inqu
iry-b
ased
pro
cess
that
in
volv
ed y
outh
in d
ata
colle
ction
, dat
a an
alys
is, d
ata
inte
rpre
tatio
n, o
r use
of
know
ledg
e to
impr
ove
lives
. Stu
dies
mus
t ad
ditio
nally
ass
ess o
utco
mes
rela
ted
to
the
expe
rienc
es, o
utco
mes
, or i
mpa
ct o
f yo
uth
inqu
iry o
n yo
uth
parti
cipa
nts o
r the
ir su
rrou
ndin
g en
viro
nmen
t.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs (
13-1
8-ye
ar-o
lds)
: NA
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
(see
abo
ve)
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus
on st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Stu
dies
that
on
ly in
clud
ed y
outh
age
d 18
-25
wer
e ex
clud
ed if
they
con
siste
d on
ly o
f und
er-
grad
uate
or g
radu
ate
stud
ents
. You
th
inqu
iry a
ppro
ache
s tha
t rep
orte
d yo
uth
parti
cipa
nts a
s sol
ely
rece
ivin
g kn
owle
dge
or in
stru
ction
wer
e ex
clud
ed. O
ther
wise
, st
udie
s wer
e ex
clud
ed fr
om th
e re
view
ba
sed
on a
failu
re to
mee
t the
incl
usio
n cr
iteria
det
aile
d ab
ove.

85
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Pra
ctitio
ner g
row
th (i
.e.,
adul
ts c
hang
ed th
eir
attitu
des,
per
spec
tives
, und
erst
andi
ng a
nd b
ehav
iors
).
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
-yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es:
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18-
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Chan
ges t
o pr
actiti
oner
s, p
olic
ies,
pro
gram
s,
rese
arch
, and
pee
r gro
up n
orm
s. S
peci
fy o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s mea
sure
d: P
eer
grou
p no
rms (
i.e.,
incr
ease
in k
now
ledg
e or
cha
nge
in
attitu
des a
bout
hea
lth re
late
d to
pics
); pr
ogra
m d
evel
opm
ent
or im
prov
emen
t (i.e
., th
e cr
eatio
n of
new
pro
gram
s,
enric
hmen
t of s
ervi
ces,
spac
es, o
r fun
ding
for s
ervi
ces)
; re
sear
ch b
enefi
ts (i
.e.,
impr
ovem
ents
in re
crui
tmen
t, da
ta
qual
ity, i
nter
pret
ation
of r
esul
ts, o
r per
spec
tive
gain
ed);
pass
age
of p
olic
y at
scho
ol, c
ity, o
r sta
te le
vel.
Setti
ng(s
): N
o se
tting
rest
rictio
nCo
untr
y(ie
s): U
.S.
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Com
mun
ity, I
nter
pers
onal
, Sc
hool

86
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
16. K
ling
bei
l DA
, Ren
shaw
T. M
ind
fuln
ess-
Bas
ed In
terv
enti
ons
fo
r Te
ache
rs: A
Met
a-A
naly
sis
of
the
Em
erg
ing
Evi
den
ce-B
ase.
Psy
ArX
iv [
Inte
rnet
]. 2
018
Oct
1 [
cite
d 2
019
Aug
15]
; Pre
Pri
nt.
Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//p
syar
xiv.
com
/589
jq/
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
NO
TES
All a
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded.
K-1
2 te
ache
rsDa
te ra
nge:
Ince
ption
of d
atab
ases
se
arch
ed -
April
201
8#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d ov
eral
l: 29
Mos
t stu
dies
use
d sm
all s
ampl
e siz
es. T
he m
ajor
ity
of st
udie
s rel
ied
on se
lf-re
port
mea
sure
s, w
hich
are
su
scep
tible
to re
spon
se b
ias.
Non
e of
the
stud
ies c
ompa
red
the
effec
ts o
f MBI
s with
an
alte
rnati
ve tr
eatm
ent a
ppro
ach.
The
char
acte
ristic
s and
com
pone
nts o
f the
MBI
s in
clud
ed w
ithin
our
ana
lysis
var
ied
wid
ely.
The
m
ajor
ity o
f MBI
s also
incl
uded
seve
ral “
seco
ndar
y” o
r no
n- m
indf
ulne
ss c
ompo
nent
s with
in th
e tr
eatm
ent
pack
age,
yet
few
pro
vide
d a
deta
iled
oper
ation
aliza
tion
of a
ll in
terv
entio
n co
mpo
nent
s bey
ond
min
dful
ness
.
Visu
al a
nd st
atisti
cal
evid
ence
of p
ublic
ation
bi
as su
gges
ted
the
over
all
effec
t esti
mat
e m
ay b
e po
sitive
ly b
iase
d.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
up in
clud
ed re
leva
nt to
H.S
. age
d te
ens a
ges 1
3-18
- sp
ecify
by
age
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up.
Onl
y tw
o st
udie
s app
eare
d to
mea
sure
out
com
es o
f MBI
for
seco
ndar
y sc
hool
teac
hers
.9
Data
base
s sea
rche
d: P
yscI
NFO
, ERI
C,
PubM
ed, A
cade
mic
Sea
rch
Com
plet
e,
ProQ
uest
Diss
erta
tion
and
Thes
es
(abs
trac
ts o
nly)
High
-leve
l find
ings
: The
ave
rage
ove
rall
trea
tmen
t eff
ect,
g =
.601
, 95%
CI [
.418
, .78
4], w
as st
atisti
cally
sig
nific
ant (
p <
.001
).
On
the
first
-ord
er p
rimar
y ou
tcom
e of
psy
chol
ogic
al
wel
lbei
ng (k
= 2
3, n
= 1
,248
), M
BIs w
ere
asso
ciat
ed
with
a sm
all-t
o-m
ediu
m tr
eatm
ent e
ffect
, g =
.431
, 95%
CI
[.25
4, .6
08].
On
the
first
-ord
er p
rimar
y ou
tcom
e of
ps
ycho
logi
cal d
istre
ss (k
= 2
7, n
= 1
,469
), M
BIs h
ad a
m
ediu
m tr
eatm
ent e
ffect
, g =
.551
, 95%
CI [
.368
, .73
4].
The
effec
ts o
f MBI
s on
psyc
holo
gica
l wel
lbei
ng a
nd
psyc
holo
gica
l dist
ress
wer
e st
atisti
cally
sign
ifica
nt (p
<
.001
).
Resu
lts fo
r the
seco
nd-o
rder
prim
ary
outc
ome
of
clas
sroo
m c
limat
e an
d te
achi
ng p
racti
ces w
ere
not
stati
stica
lly si
gnifi
cant
.
Trea
tmen
t effe
cts w
ere
smal
ler i
n st
udie
s whe
re M
BIs
wer
e de
liver
ed b
y th
e pr
ogra
m d
evel
oper
s (g
= .5
11)
com
pare
d to
oth
er tr
aine
d st
aff (g
= .7
06).
Fina
lly,
incr
easin
g th
e do
se o
f the
inte
rven
tion
beyo
nd th
e sa
mpl
e av
erag
e (M
= 2
4.42
1 ho
urs)
had
a n
eglig
ible
im
pact
(b =
-.01
1) o
n th
e ob
serv
ed e
ffect
size
.
Ove
rall
effec
ts fo
r tea
cher
s (g
= .6
01) w
ere
simila
r to
findi
ngs i
n pr
evio
us m
eta-
anal
ytic
revi
ews o
f MBI
s with
he
alth
y ad
ult p
opul
ation
s, a
nd a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith la
rger
eff
ects
than
MBI
s tar
getin
g he
alth
car
e pr
ofes
siona
ls or
you
th.
Inte
rven
tion(
s) T
ype/
Nam
e--O
vera
llM
indf
ulne
ss-B
ased
Inte
rven
tions
.Re
view
incl
usio
n cr
iteria
: Stu
dies
incl
uded
m
ust i
nclu
de th
e pr
ovisi
on o
f a M
BI
with
teac
hers
who
wor
ked
in a
pre
-K-1
2 se
tting
(det
erm
inati
on o
f the
“pr
imar
y”
natu
re o
f min
dful
ness
trai
ning
with
in a
gi
ven
inte
rven
tion
was
def
erre
d to
the
self-
iden
tifica
tion
of su
ch b
y th
e au
thor
). N
o in
clus
ion
crite
ria w
as se
t reg
ardi
ng
type
s of o
utco
me
varia
bles
exa
min
ed,
geog
raph
ical
or c
ultu
ral r
estr
ictio
ns, o
r la
ngua
ge o
f pub
licati
on.
13-1
8 ye
ar-o
ld (o
r sim
ilar)
Tee
n sp
ecifi
c fin
ding
s: (o
r se
e Te
en T
able
bel
ow).
Find
ings
wer
e no
t pro
vide
d by
ag
e gr
oup
or sc
hool
type
.

87
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Inte
rven
tion(
s) T
ype/
Nam
e--e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r eq
uiva
lent
(spe
cify
). N
ot a
vaila
ble.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
: Stu
dies
that
in
corp
orat
ed o
ther
med
itatio
n ex
erci
ses
with
out t
rain
ing
min
dful
ness
and
in
terv
entio
ns th
at u
sed
min
dful
ness
as
seco
ndar
y co
mpo
nent
s wer
e ex
clud
ed.
Stud
ies o
f MBI
targ
eting
pos
t-sec
onda
ry
stud
ents
enr
olle
d in
teac
hing
pro
gram
s,
educ
ator
s wor
king
in p
ost-s
econ
dary
in
stitu
tions
, and
stud
ies t
hat i
nclu
ded
teac
hers
with
in b
road
er a
dult
sam
ples
w
ere
also
exc
lude
d. N
on-in
terv
entio
n st
udie
s of m
indf
ulne
ss o
r non
-em
piric
al
artic
les w
ere
excl
uded
. Stu
dies
usin
g sin
gle-
case
des
igns
, pur
ely
qual
itativ
e m
etho
ds, a
nd p
re-p
ost d
esig
ns w
ith n
o co
ntro
l gro
up w
ere
also
exc
lude
d.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall
--inc
lude
all
but h
ighl
ight
PSW
EB
outc
omes
.
Psyc
holo
gica
l wel
lbei
ng; p
sych
olog
ical
dist
ress
; cla
ssro
om
clim
ate
and
teac
hing
pra
ctice
s
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB.
Not
app
licab
le
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for s
ocia
l/bu
ilt/s
truc
tura
l env
ironm
ents
an
d/or
peo
ple
surr
ound
ing
13-1
8 ye
ar-o
lds (
glob
al/c
ultu
ral,
natio
nal,
com
mun
ity, i
nter
pers
onal
leve
l)--S
peci
fy o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
it is
mea
sure
d.Sc
hool
clim
ate
(teac
her w
ell-b
eing
)
Setti
ng(s
): Al
l sch
ool-b
ased
Coun
try(
ies)
:St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s):
Leve
l (e.
g., g
loba
l/cu
ltura
l, na
tiona
l, co
mm
unity
, in
terp
erso
nal):
Sch
ool

88
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
17. M
ansfi
eld
L, K
ay T
, Mea
ds
C, G
rig
sby-
Duf
fy L
, Lan
e J,
Jo
hn A
, et
al. S
po
rt a
nd D
ance
Inte
rven
tio
ns f
or
Hea
lthy
Yo
ung
Peo
ple
(15-
24 Y
ears
) to
Pro
mo
te S
ubje
ctiv
e W
ell-
Bei
ng: A
Sys
tem
atic
R
evie
w. B
MJ
Op
en [
Inte
rnet
]. 2
018
July
15
[cit
ed 2
019
Aug
7];
8(7
):e02
0959
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
mc/
arti
cles
/PM
C60
8246
0/FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
Hea
lthy
(no
heal
th
cond
ition
dia
gnos
ed b
y a
heal
th p
rofe
ssio
nal)
youn
g pe
ople
ag
ed 1
5-24
yea
rs o
ld
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 200
6 –
Sep
2016
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
11
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed te
ens
ages
13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
re
leva
nt a
ge g
roup
: Ado
lesc
ents
age
d 13
-18
(Am
oros
e et
al.,
20
09),
Ages
18-
20 (K
anoj
ia e
t al.,
201
3), A
ges 1
7-22
(Kim
&
Kim
, 200
7), A
ges 1
8-25
(Li e
t al.,
201
5), A
ges 1
3-19
(Lin
dgre
n et
al
., 20
11),
Grad
es 1
1 an
d 12
(Nog
gle
et a
l., 2
012)
, Age
s 15-
19
(Sta
iano
et a
l., 2
013)
.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: P
ublis
hed
liter
atur
e su
gges
ts
med
itativ
e ph
ysic
al a
ctivi
ty (y
oga
and
Badu
anjin
Q
igon
g) a
nd g
roup
-bas
ed o
r pee
r-sup
port
ed sp
ort
and
danc
e ha
s som
e po
tenti
al to
impr
ove
subj
ectiv
e w
ell-b
eing
. Gre
y lit
erat
ure
sugg
ests
spor
ts a
nd d
ance
im
prov
e su
bjec
tive
wel
l-bei
ng b
ut id
entif
y ne
gativ
e fe
elin
gs o
f com
pete
ncy
and
capa
bilit
y. T
he a
mou
nt
and
qual
ity o
f pub
lishe
d ev
iden
ce o
n sp
ort a
nd d
ance
in
terv
entio
ns to
enh
ance
subj
ectiv
e w
ell-b
eing
is lo
w.
Bette
r des
igne
d st
udie
s are
nee
ded.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: D
ue to
clin
ical
het
erog
enei
ty
betw
een
stud
ies,
met
a-an
alys
is w
as n
ot a
ppro
pria
te.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
An
y sp
ort o
r dan
ce in
terv
entio
n.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Psy
cIN
FO,
Ovi
d M
EDLI
NE,
ERI
C, W
eb o
f Sci
ence
(Art
s an
d Hu
man
ities
Cita
tion
Inde
x, S
ocia
l Sc
ienc
e an
d Sc
ienc
e Ci
tatio
n In
dex)
, SC
OPU
S, P
ILO
TS, C
INAH
L, S
PORT
Disc
us,
Inte
rnati
onal
Inde
x to
Per
form
ing
Arts
.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
bel
ow)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
Volle
ybal
l (Am
oros
e et
al.,
200
9), Y
oga
(Kan
ojia
et a
l., 2
013)
, Aer
obic
exe
rcise
, bod
y co
nditi
onin
g,
hip-
hop
danc
ing,
and
ice
skati
ng (K
im &
Kim
, 200
7), B
adua
njin
ex
erci
se (L
i et a
l., 2
015)
, Em
pow
erm
ent-b
ased
exe
rcise
in
terv
entio
n pr
ogra
m (L
indg
ren
et a
l., 2
011)
, Krip
alu
Yoga
(N
oggl
e et
al.,
201
2), E
xerg
ame
(EG)
inte
rven
tion
(Sta
iano
et
al.,
2013
).
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: A
ny c
ompa
rativ
e st
udie
s in
vesti
gatin
g an
y fo
rm o
f spo
rt o
r dan
ce
com
pare
d w
ith n
o sp
ort o
r dan
ce, u
sual
ro
utine
or c
ompa
ring
pret
est a
nd p
ost-
test
scor
es in
hea
lthy
youn
g pe
ople
age
d 15
-24
year
s and
mea
surin
g an
y fo
rm o
f su
bjec
tive
wel
l-bei
ng w
ere
incl
uded
.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: any
subj
ectiv
e w
ell-b
eing
out
com
e us
ing
any
reco
gnize
d m
etho
d or
mea
sure
.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Stu
dies
that
incl
uded
pa
rtici
pant
s with
a h
ealth
con
ditio
n,
incl
uded
par
ticip
ants
who
wer
e pa
id
prof
essio
nals
or e
lite
athl
etes
, inc
lude
d pa
rtici
pant
s in
clin
ical
ly b
ased
spor
t an
d da
nce
inte
rven
tions
wer
e ex
clud
ed.
Stud
ies t
hat i
nclu
ded
clin
ical
spor
t-ba
sed
or d
ance
ther
apy,
spor
t and
dan
ce
for c
linic
al p
roce
dure
s (e.
g., s
urge
ry,
med
ical
test
s, d
iagn
ostic
s), o
r wal
king
as
inte
rven
tions
wer
e ex
clud
ed. D
iscus
sion
artic
les,
com
men
tarie
s, o
r opi
nion
pie
ces
not p
rese
nting
em
piric
al o
r the
oreti
cal
rese
arch
wer
e ex
clud
ed.

89
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: S
port
co
mpe
tenc
e (5
-item
subs
cale
of t
he In
trin
sic M
otiva
tion
Inve
ntor
y), n
eed
for a
uton
omy
(6-it
em sc
ale:
Hol
lem
beak
&
Am
oros
e), n
eed
for r
elat
edne
ss (1
0-ite
m R
iche
r and
Va
llera
nd’s
Feel
ings
of R
elat
edne
ss S
cale
), se
lf-es
teem
(10-
item
Ros
enbe
rg’s
Self-
Este
em S
cale
), bu
rnou
t (15
-item
Ath
lete
Bu
rnou
t Que
stion
naire
) (Am
oros
e et
al.,
200
9), 1
6-ite
m
Ange
r que
stion
naire
, 40-
item
trai
t anx
iety
que
stion
naire
, 10
-item
dep
ress
ion
ques
tionn
aire
, 50-
item
subj
ectiv
e w
ell-
bein
g qu
estio
nnai
re (K
anoj
ia e
t al.,
201
3), m
ood
(Sub
jecti
ve
Exer
cise
Exp
erie
nces
Sca
le) (
Kim
& K
im, 2
007)
, Sel
f-est
eem
(S
elf-e
stee
m S
cale
), m
ood/
min
dful
ness
(Pro
file
of M
ood
Stat
es
scal
e), q
ualit
y of
life
, str
ess (
Perc
eive
d St
ress
Sca
le),
Self-
rate
d sy
mpt
om in
tens
ity (S
CL-9
0 sc
ale)
(Li e
t al.,
201
5), s
elf-e
ffica
cy
(10-
item
Gen
eral
Sel
f-effi
cacy
Sca
le),
Beha
vior
cha
nges
(Soc
ial
Barr
iers
to E
xerc
ise S
elf-e
ffica
cy Q
uesti
onna
ire) (
Lind
gren
et a
l.,
2011
), m
ood
(PO
MS-
shor
t for
m),
affec
t (Po
sitive
and
Neg
ative
Aff
ect S
ched
ule
for C
hild
ren)
, str
ess (
PSS)
, pos
itive
psy
chol
ogy
(Inve
ntor
y of
Pos
itive
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ttitu
des)
, Res
ilien
ce
(Res
ilien
ce S
cale
), an
ger (
Stat
e Tr
ait A
nger
Exp
ress
ion
Inve
ntor
y-2T
M),
min
dful
ness
(Chi
ld A
ccep
tanc
e M
indf
ulne
ss M
easu
re)
(Nog
gle
et a
l., 2
012)
, sel
f-effi
cacy
(Exe
rcise
Con
fiden
ce S
urve
y),
self-
este
em (R
osen
berg
Sel
f-Est
eem
Sca
le),
peer
supp
ort
(Frie
ndsh
ip Q
ualit
y Q
uesti
onna
ire) (
Stai
ano
et a
l., 2
013)
.
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): W
hat W
orks
Cen
tre
for
Wel
lbei
ng m
etho
ds g
uide
, GRA
DE
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): pr
ogra
mm
es o
f spo
rt a
nd d
ance
Co
untr
y(ie
s): U
K-ba
sed
prog
ram
mes
(but
som
e ca
me
from
U
.S.)
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol, f
amily
, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
recr
eatio
n
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Amor
ose
et a
l., 2
009
Adol
esce
nts a
ged
13-1
8Vo
lleyb
all
The
exte
nt to
whi
ch a
thle
tes’
psy
chol
ogic
al n
eeds
are
sa
tisfie
d du
ring
a se
ason
are
link
ed to
incr
ease
s and
de
crea
ses i
n th
eir p
ositi
ve a
nd n
egati
ve w
ell-b
eing
All f
emal
es, 9
0% C
auca
sian
Kim
& K
im, 2
007
Ages
17-
22Ae
robi
c ex
erci
se, b
ody
cond
ition
ing,
hip
-hop
dan
cing
, an
d ic
e sk
ating
aero
bics
and
hip
-hop
rate
d po
sitive
wel
lbei
ng h
ighe
r th
an b
ody
cond
ition
ing
and
ice
skati
ng g
roup
; lo
wer
psy
chol
ogic
al d
istre
ss
Nog
gle
et a
l., 2
012
Grad
es 1
1 an
d 12
Krip
alu
Yoga
Not
cau
sal d
ue to
smal
l sam
ples
size
, but
sugg
ests
be
nefit
s in
psyc
hoso
cial
wel
lbei
ng
92.2
% C
auca
sian
in ru
ral
wes
tern
Mas
sach
usett
s
Stai
ano
et a
l., 2
013
Ages
15-
19Ex
erga
me
(EG)
inte
rven
tion
Sam
ple
is A
fric
an-
Amer
ican
ove
rwei
ght a
nd
obes
e st
uden
ts fr
om a
ur
ban
publ
ic h
igh
scho
ol

90
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
18. M
arx
R, T
anne
r-S
mit
h E
E, D
avis
on
CM
, Ufh
olz
LA
, Fre
eman
J, S
hank
ar R
, et
al. L
ater
sch
oo
l sta
rt t
imes
fo
r su
pp
ort
ing
the
ed
ucat
ion,
hea
lth,
and
wel
l-b
eing
of
hig
h sc
hoo
l stu
den
ts. C
och
rane
D
atab
ase
of
Sys
tem
atic
Rev
iew
s [I
nter
view
]. 2
017
July
3 [
cite
d 2
019
July
26]
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.co
chra
nelib
rary
.co
m/c
dsr
/do
i/10
.100
2/14
6518
58.C
D00
9467
.pub
2/fu
llFO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
13-
19 y
ear o
lds
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: Inc
eptio
n of
da
taba
ses i
nclu
ded
– Fe
brua
ry 2
016
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
11
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed te
ens
ages
13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
re
leva
nt a
ge g
roup
: Gra
de 9
to 1
2 st
uden
ts (B
row
n, 2
011;
W
ahlst
rom
, 200
2)
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s:
Prel
imin
ary
evid
ence
from
the
incl
uded
stud
ies
indi
cate
d a
pote
ntial
ass
ocia
tion
betw
een
late
r sch
ool
star
t tim
es a
nd a
cade
mic
and
psy
chos
ocia
l out
com
es,
but q
ualit
y an
d co
mpa
rabi
lity
of th
ese
data
wer
e lo
w a
nd o
ften
prec
lude
d qu
antit
ative
synt
hesis
. Fou
r st
udie
s exa
min
ed th
e as
soci
ation
bet
wee
n la
ter s
choo
l st
art ti
mes
and
aca
dem
ic o
utco
mes
, rep
ortin
g m
ixed
re
sults
. Six
stud
ies e
xam
ined
effe
cts o
n to
tal a
mou
nt
of sl
eep
and
repo
rted
sign
ifica
nt, p
ositi
ve re
latio
nshi
ps
betw
een
late
r sch
ool s
tart
tim
es a
nd a
mou
nt o
f sle
ep.
One
stud
y pr
ovid
ed in
form
ation
con
cern
ing
men
tal
heal
th o
utco
mes
, rep
ortin
g an
ass
ocia
tion
betw
een
decr
ease
d de
pres
sive
sym
ptom
s and
late
r sch
ool s
tart
tim
es. T
here
wer
e m
ixed
resu
lts fo
r the
ass
ocia
tion
betw
een
late
r sch
ool s
tart
tim
es a
nd a
bsen
teei
sm.
Thre
e st
udie
s rep
orte
d m
ixed
resu
lts c
once
rnin
g th
e as
soci
ation
bet
wee
n la
ter s
choo
l sta
rt ti
mes
and
st
uden
t ale
rtne
ss. T
here
was
lim
ited
indi
catio
n of
po
tenti
al a
dver
se e
ffect
s on
logi
stics
, as t
he q
ualit
ative
po
rtion
s of o
ne st
udy
repo
rted
less
inte
racti
on
betw
een
pare
nts a
nd c
hild
ren,
and
ano
ther
repo
rted
st
affing
and
sche
dulin
g di
fficu
lties
. Bec
ause
of t
he
insu
ffici
ent e
vide
nce,
no
firm
con
clus
ions
con
cern
ing
adve
rse
effec
ts c
an b
e m
ade
at th
is tim
e.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: L
imite
d ev
iden
ce b
ase
prev
ente
d de
term
inin
g eff
ects
of l
ater
star
t tim
es w
ith a
ny c
on-
fiden
ce.
Beca
use
of lo
w m
etho
dolo
gica
l sta
ndar
ds, t
he v
arie
ty
of p
artic
ular
inte
rven
tions
and
the
varia
tion
of
outc
omes
mea
sure
d, m
eta-
anal
ysis
was
not
pos
sible
fo
r mos
t of t
he re
cord
ed o
utco
mes
, man
y st
udie
s did
no
t rep
ort s
uffici
ent d
ata
need
ed to
cal
cula
te e
ffect
siz
es, w
eak
inte
rnal
val
idity
of t
his l
itera
ture
(pre
senc
e of
onl
y on
e cl
uste
r RCT
) pre
vent
s str
ong
caus
al
infe
renc
es a
bout
the
effec
ts o
f lat
er sc
hool
star
t tim
es
on h
igh
scho
ol st
uden
t’s o
utco
me.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Rev
iew
incl
uded
inte
rven
-tio
ns th
at in
volv
ed a
com
paris
on b
etw
een
two
or m
ore
diffe
rent
sc
hool
star
t tim
es. “
Late
Sta
rt”
inte
rven
tions
pur
pose
ly m
oved
sc
hool
star
t tim
es la
ter a
nd th
en c
ompa
red
outc
omes
obt
aine
d un
der t
he p
revi
ous o
r ano
ther
ear
lier s
tart
tim
es. A
lso in
clud
ed
stud
ies t
hat c
ompa
red
outc
omes
ass
ocia
ted
with
star
t tim
es
at d
iffer
ent,
but m
atch
ed, s
choo
ls (d
iffer
ent s
hifts
of s
tude
nts
with
in th
e sa
me
scho
ol)
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Coc
hran
e Ce
ntra
l Reg
ister
, Coc
hran
e Da
taba
se
of S
Rs, M
EDLI
NE
Ovi
d, E
MBA
SE O
vid,
Ps
ycIN
FO, A
cade
mic
Sea
rch
Com
plet
e EB
SCO
, CIN
AHL
EBSC
O, E
duca
tion
Full
Text
EB
SCO
, Edu
cato
r’s c
ompl
ete
refe
renc
e,
ERIC
Pro
Que
st, G
loba
lHea
lth C
AB H
ealth
, So
ciol
ogic
al A
bstr
acts
Pro
Que
st, J
STO
R,
Briti
sh E
duca
tion
Inde
x, A
ustr
alia
n Ed
ucati
on In
dex,
Diss
erta
tions
and
The
ses
ProQ
uest
, Evi
denc
e fo
r Pol
icy
and
Prac
tice
Info
rmati
on a
nd C
oord
inati
ng C
entr
e Re
view
Dat
abas
es.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equi
vale
nt (s
peci
fy):
“Lat
e St
art”
(Bro
wn,
201
1), D
elay
ed sc
hool
st
art ti
me
from
7:1
5am
to 8
:45a
m (W
ahlst
rom
, 200
2).
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: R
ando
mize
d co
ntro
lled
trai
ls (R
CTs)
(inc
ludi
ng c
lust
er-r
ando
mize
d co
ntro
lled
trai
ls or
rand
omize
d cr
oss-
over
tr
ials)
and
non
-ran
dom
ized
desig
ns su
ch a
s in
terr
upte
d tim
e se
ries s
tudi
es (I
TSs)
with
at
leas
t thr
ee p
re- a
nd p
ost-i
nter
venti
on
mea
sure
men
ts, c
ontr
olle
d be
fore
-and
-aft
er st
udie
s (CB
As),
and
non-
rand
omize
d qu
asi-e
xper
imen
tal c
ontr
olle
d tr
ials
(incl
udin
g po
tenti
ally
clu
ster
and
/or c
ross
-ov
er tr
ials)
that
ass
esse
d th
e im
pact
of a
de
laye
d sc
hool
star
t tim
e in
terv
entio
n on
ad
oles
cent
s age
d 13
-19
wer
e el
igib
le fo
r in
clus
ion
in th
is re
view
.

91
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
:
Men
tal h
ealth
indi
cato
rs in
clud
ing,
for e
xam
ple,
mea
sure
s of
stre
ss, a
nxie
ty, f
eelin
gs o
f iso
latio
n or
exc
lusio
n, d
epre
ssio
n or
su
icid
al id
eatio
n.
Stud
ent t
ruan
cy o
r atte
ndan
ce.
Teac
her o
r sel
f-rep
orte
d st
uden
t ale
rtne
ss.
St
uden
t aca
dem
ic o
utco
mes
, mea
sure
d, fo
r exa
mpl
e, b
y lo
cally
rele
vant
stan
dard
ized
test
scor
es a
nd c
ours
e gr
ades
, m
idte
rm a
nd fi
nal e
xam
resu
lts, a
nd g
radu
ation
reco
rds.
O
utco
mes
rela
ted
to a
mou
nt o
r qua
lity
of sl
eep
for
stud
ents
, ofte
n re
ferr
ed to
as t
otal
slee
p tim
e (T
ST) f
or
stud
ents
.
Stud
ent s
leep
ines
s or f
atigu
e.
Adve
rse
outc
omes
or p
ossib
le h
arm
s:
In
crea
sed
tran
spor
tatio
n co
sts f
or st
uden
ts, f
amili
es, o
r sc
hool
s.
Decr
ease
d st
uden
t sup
ervi
sion
outs
ide
scho
ol ti
me.
De
crea
sed
time
spen
t with
fam
ily.
Is
sues
with
chi
ld c
are
and
befo
re- a
nd a
fter-s
choo
l car
e fo
r yo
unge
r sib
lings
.
Decr
ease
s in
enro
llmen
t in
extr
acur
ricul
ar a
nd a
thle
tic
activ
ities
.
Pola
rizin
g or
incr
ease
d co
nflic
ts w
ithin
the
scho
ol
com
mun
ity th
roug
h th
is iss
ue.
Di
fficu
lties
for s
choo
l sta
ff (m
akin
g m
edic
al a
ppoi
ntm
ents
, att
endi
ng p
rofe
ssio
nal d
evel
opm
ent w
orks
hops
, etc
.).
Incr
ease
d co
sts a
nd d
ifficu
lties
obt
aini
ng su
bstit
ute
teac
hers
.
Inte
rmed
iate
out
com
es in
clud
ed:
Seco
ndar
y ou
tcom
es in
clud
e:
Out
com
es re
late
d to
hea
lth b
ehav
iors
(e.g
. die
t, ex
erci
se,
toba
cco
use,
alc
ohol
or d
rug
use,
uns
afe
sexu
al p
racti
ces)
.
Heal
th a
nd sa
fety
indi
cato
rs (e
.g. v
ehic
ular
acc
iden
ts, f
alls
or o
ther
acc
iden
ts, a
bduc
tions
, tra
nspo
rtati
on is
sues
).
Soci
al o
utco
mes
(e.g
. cha
nges
in so
cial
supp
orts
, pee
r re
latio
ns, p
artic
ipati
on in
ext
racu
rric
ular
acti
vitie
s, st
uden
t em
ploy
men
t, di
scip
line
refe
rral
s at s
choo
l).
Fam
ily o
utco
mes
(e.g
. cha
nges
in th
e su
perv
ision
of
child
ren/
adol
esce
nts a
nd c
hild
car
e, fa
mily
com
mun
icati
on
and
dyna
mic
s, ro
utine
s, ro
les)
.
Scho
ol o
utco
mes
(e.g
. cha
nges
in re
gist
ratio
n nu
mbe
rs,
scho
ol c
limat
e or
disc
iplin
e re
ferr
als)
.
Com
mun
ity o
utco
mes
(e.g
. rea
ction
s fro
m lo
cal
busin
esse
s, fe
elin
gs o
f saf
ety
on n
eigh
borh
ood
stre
ets)
.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Stu
dies
wer
e ex
clud
ed fr
om
the
revi
ew b
ased
on
a fa
ilure
to m
eet t
he
incl
usio
n cr
iteria
det
aile
d ab
ove.

92
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: A
vera
ge
hour
s of s
leep
per
nig
ht, w
ake
time,
and
bed
tim
e; st
uden
t ac
hiev
emen
t inf
orm
ation
(e.g
., cr
edit
accu
mul
ation
, gra
de 9
EQ
AO, g
rade
10
Ont
ario
Sec
onda
ry S
choo
l Lite
racy
Test
, ave
rage
gr
ade
9, 1
0, 1
1, a
nd 1
2 m
arks
by
subj
ect)
; eas
e of
com
ing
to
scho
ol a
fter s
ched
ule
chan
ge, s
tude
nt o
pini
on o
n sc
hool
arr
ival
tim
e; sc
hool
per
cepti
ons (
7 qu
estio
n re
gard
ing
gene
ral f
eelin
gs
tow
ards
thei
r sch
ools)
; hou
rs p
er w
eek
spen
t on
hom
ewor
k/st
udyi
ng a
nd sp
orts
; abs
ente
eism
rate
s; p
artic
ipati
on in
spor
ts,
volu
ntee
r acti
vitie
s, a
nd le
ader
ship
pro
gram
s; te
ache
r-rep
orte
d al
ertn
ess a
nd p
artic
ipati
on o
f stu
dent
s in
the
mor
ning
; fee
lings
to
war
ds n
ew sc
hedu
le (B
row
n, 2
011)
, Sch
ool a
nd n
on-s
choo
l ni
ght s
leep
tota
l, ris
e tim
e, a
nd b
ed ti
me;
lette
r gra
des e
arne
d by
all
stud
ents
ove
r a c
ours
e of
6 y
ears
.; da
ytim
e sle
epin
ess;
ta
rdin
ess a
nd a
ttend
ance
rate
s; sl
eep
beha
vior
; con
tinuo
us
enro
llmen
t; gr
adua
tion
rate
s; w
heth
er st
uden
ts a
rriv
ed la
te
due
to o
vers
leep
ing,
fell
asle
ep in
mor
ning
or a
ftern
oon
clas
s;
depr
essio
n; d
ays h
ome
sick;
impa
ct o
f sta
rt ti
me
chan
ge
on sp
orts
; ove
rall
pers
pecti
ves o
n tim
e ch
ange
; tea
cher
, ad
min
istra
tor,
coun
sello
r, nu
rse,
and
par
ent p
ersp
ectiv
es o
n tim
e ch
ange
(Wal
hstr
om, 2
002)
.
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): GR
ADE
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it
is m
easu
red:
Teac
her-r
epor
ted
impa
ct o
f cha
nge
on sc
hool
(B
row
n, 2
011)
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
sCo
untr
y(ie
s): C
anad
a, U
.S.,
Isra
el, N
ew Z
eala
nd, C
roati
a, B
razil
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
: (C
olor
ado,
Rho
de Is
land
, Min
neso
ta, K
entu
cky,
Nor
th C
arol
ina,
W
yom
ing)
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, sc
hool
, fam
ily,
wor
k, re
crea
tion,
OST
): Sc
hool
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Brow
n, 2
011
Grad
e 9
to 1
2“L
ate
Star
t”: D
elay
ed sc
hool
star
t tim
e fr
om 9
:00a
m
to 1
0:00
amPo
sitive
resu
lts a
re sh
own
acro
ss a
cade
mic
indi
cato
rs,
staff
and
stud
ent p
erce
ption
s, a
bsen
teei
sm ra
tes,
as
wel
l as o
vera
ll av
erag
e sle
ep ti
mes
. Ove
rall
achi
evem
ent t
rend
s are
enc
oura
ging
, the
resu
lts a
re
by n
o m
eans
defi
nitiv
e.
Mea
n ag
e of
par
ticip
ants
in
volv
ed w
as 1
8. T
here
is
an a
ckno
wle
dgem
ent t
hat
impl
emen
tatio
n w
as n
ot
with
out i
ts st
rugg
les.
Wah
lstro
m, 2
002
Grad
e 9
to 1
2De
laye
d sc
hool
star
t tim
e fr
om 7
:15a
m to
8:4
5am
Sign
ifica
nt b
enefi
ts su
ch a
s im
prov
ed a
ttend
ance
an
d en
rollm
ent r
ates
, les
s sle
epin
g in
cla
ss, a
nd le
ss
stud
ent-r
epor
ted
depr
essi
on.
Stud
ents
repo
rted
a
nega
tive
outc
ome
of th
e st
art ti
me
chan
ge b
eing
ha
ving
to m
iss a
full
clas
s du
e to
spor
ts g
ame,
whi
le
prev
ious
ly, o
nly
parti
al
clas
ses e
ver h
ad to
be
miss
ed. T
he re
ducti
on in
le
arni
ng ti
me
was
seen
as
prob
lem
atic.
Con
tinuo
us
enro
llmen
t in
the
sam
e di
stric
t or s
ame
scho
ol
rose
sign
ifica
ntly
sinc
e th
e 19
95-1
996
scho
ol y
ear.

93
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
19. N
ashe
eda
A, A
bd
ulla
h H
B, K
raus
s S
E, A
hmed
NB
. A N
arra
tive
Sys
tem
atic
Rev
iew
of
Life
Ski
lls E
duc
atio
n: E
ffec
tive
ness
, Res
earc
h G
aps,
and
Pri
ori
ties
. Int
erna
l Jo
urna
l of
Ad
ole
scen
ce a
nd
Yout
h [I
nter
net]
. 201
9 [c
ited
201
9 A
ug 2
6]; 2
4(3)
:362
-379
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.tan
dfo
nlin
e.co
m/d
oi/
full/
10.1
080/
0267
3843
.201
8.14
7927
8FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
Ado
lesc
ents
10-
19
year
s old
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: Inc
eptio
n of
da
taba
ses s
earc
hed
– 20
16#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 2
5
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed te
ens
ages
13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
re
leva
nt a
ge g
roup
: Mal
e at
hlet
es (m
ean
age
= 17
.1 y
ears
) (Ho
lt et
al.,
200
8), h
igh
scho
ol m
ale
stud
ents
(Mar
yam
et a
l., 2
011)
, hi
gh sc
hool
stud
ents
(mea
n ag
e =
15.9
7 ye
ars)
(Giv
auda
n et
al.,
20
08; G
ivau
dan
et a
l., 2
007)
, 10th
gra
de st
uden
ts (J
egan
nath
an
et a
l., 2
014)
, Del
inqu
ent a
dole
scen
t boy
s (N
aser
i & B
abak
hani
, 20
14),
stud
ents
age
d 14
-18
(Par
vath
y &
Pill
ai, 2
015)
, Stu
dent
s ag
ed 1
2 &
16
(Tutt
le e
t al.,
200
6), h
igh
scho
ol st
uden
ts
(Vat
ankh
ah e
t al.,
201
4), s
tude
nts a
ged
15-1
7 ye
ars (
Yada
v &
Iq
bal,
2009
), st
uden
ts a
ged
13-1
5 ye
ars (
Chau
dhar
y &
Meh
ta,
2008
), Gr
ade
9 st
uden
ts (J
ames
et a
l., 2
006)
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Sci
ence
Di
rect
, Wile
y, Sp
ringe
r, EB
SCO
host
, Goo
gle
Scho
lar.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: li
fe sk
ills t
end
to b
e eff
ectiv
e in
brin
ging
abo
ut in
divi
dual
cha
nges
rele
vant
to
know
ledg
e, sk
ills a
nd a
ttitu
des i
n ris
k ar
eas a
s wel
l as
psy
chos
ocia
l ski
lls. S
ever
al st
udie
s rep
orte
d de
ficie
ncie
s in
the
tran
sfer
of s
kills
as l
ittle
em
phas
is w
as p
lace
d on
acq
uirin
g sk
ills t
hrou
gh v
ario
us
appr
oach
es su
ch a
s mod
ellin
g, im
itatio
n an
d re
info
rcem
ent.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: Q
ualit
ative
stud
ies o
n lif
e sk
ills
educ
ation
wer
e lim
ited;
onl
y on
e qu
alita
tive
stud
y m
et th
e in
clus
ion
crite
ria o
f effe
ctive
ness
of l
ife sk
ills
expe
rienc
es fo
cusin
g on
you
ng p
eopl
e’s l
earn
ing
expe
rienc
es. .
Man
y of
the
iden
tified
stud
ies w
ere
base
d on
ass
essm
ent o
f life
skill
s com
pone
nts r
athe
r tha
n un
ders
tand
ing
wha
t kno
wle
dge,
skill
s and
atti
tude
s ad
oles
cent
s req
uire
in o
rder
for p
ositi
ve b
ehav
ior c
hang
e to
occ
ur. H
ence
, fut
ure
rese
arch
shou
ld b
e di
rect
ed
tow
ard
inve
stiga
ting
how
life
skill
s pro
gram
kno
wle
dge
is tr
ansla
ted
into
beh
avio
r and
atti
tude
cha
nge.
Sec
ond,
fe
wer
stud
ies h
ave
been
con
duct
ed in
dev
elop
ing
coun
try
cont
exts
in c
ompa
rison
to th
ose
carr
ied
out i
n de
velo
ped
coun
trie
s.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Life
Ski
lls E
duca
tion
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: I
nclu
sion
was
onl
y ge
nera
lly
defin
ed. S
tudi
es w
ere
incl
uded
if th
ere
wer
e re
leva
nt to
the
rese
arch
que
stion
; if
the
conc
epts
and
defi
nitio
ns o
f ter
ms
with
in th
e re
view
wer
e re
leva
nt to
the
rese
arch
que
stion
; if k
ey v
aria
bles
and
m
easu
res i
n th
e re
view
wer
e re
leva
nt to
th
e re
sear
ch q
uesti
on; i
f the
stud
ies h
ad a
co
ncre
te re
sear
ch d
esig
n; a
nd fo
cuse
d on
ad
oles
cent
s age
d 10
-19
year
s.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equi
vale
nt (s
peci
fy):
life
skill
s edu
catio
n pr
ogra
ms (
Holt
et a
l.,
2008
; Mar
yam
et a
l., 2
011;
Jega
nnat
han
et a
l., 2
014;
Par
vath
y &
Pill
ai, 2
015;
Vat
ankh
ah e
t al.,
201
4; Y
adav
& Iq
bal,
2009
; Ch
audh
ary
& M
ehta
, 200
8), A
Team
Aga
inst
AID
S (G
ivau
dan
et
al.,
2008
; Giv
auda
n et
al.,
200
7), l
ife a
nd so
cial
skill
s tra
inin
g (N
aser
i & B
abak
hani
, 201
4), c
ogni
tive
beha
vior
al li
fe sk
ills
trai
ning
(Tutt
le e
t al.,
200
6), l
ife sk
ills a
nd H
IV/A
IDS
educ
ation
pr
ogra
m (J
ames
et a
l., 2
006)
.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Exc
lusio
n fr
om th
e re
view
was
bas
ed o
n a
failu
re to
mee
t the
in
clus
ion
crite
ria d
etai
led
abov
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Not
spec
ified
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: (
see
tabl
e)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
(see
tabl
e)
Setti
ng(s
): N
/ACo
untr
y(ie
s): M
ix o
f dev
elop
ed a
nd d
evel
opin
g co
untr
ies.
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol, f
amily
, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Scho
ol, I
ndiv
idua
l

94
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Holt,
200
8M
ean
age
= 17
.1 y
ears
Life
skill
s edu
catio
nLa
ck o
f evi
denc
e at
hlet
es w
ere
dire
ctly
taug
ht a
bout
lif
e sk
ills t
hat w
ere
repo
rted
, rat
her t
he c
oach
cre
ated
op
port
uniti
es fo
r the
stud
ent t
o de
mon
stra
te in
itiati
ves.
Sam
ple
was
onl
y 12
m
ale
athl
etes
, with
dat
a ob
tain
ed fr
om 1
0 pr
actic
es
and
10 g
ames
. Str
ong
qual
ity ra
ting.
Mar
yam
, 201
1Hi
gh sc
hool
mal
e st
uden
tsLi
fe sk
ills e
duca
tion
Life
skill
s pro
gram
s cou
ld e
nhan
ce le
vels
of se
lf-es
teem
in
subj
ects
. Al
l mal
es. M
oder
ate
qual
ity ra
ting.
Giva
udan
, 200
8Hi
gh sc
hool
stud
ents
(mea
n ag
e =
15.9
7 ye
ars)
A Te
am A
gain
st A
IDS
Positi
ve e
ffect
ove
r a m
ediu
m ti
me
span
(1 y
ear f
ollo
w
up p
erio
d) o
n kn
owle
dge
and
self-
effica
cy in
con
dom
us
e. R
esul
ts a
re m
ore
effec
t of p
rogr
ams t
hat a
re
inte
racti
ve a
nd p
rom
ote
life
skill
such
as d
ecisi
on-
mak
ing,
self-
effica
cy, a
nd re
flecti
on o
n no
rms a
nd
attitu
des.
Stro
ng q
ualit
y ra
ting.
Jega
nnat
han,
201
410
th g
rade
stud
ents
Life
skill
s edu
catio
nAm
ong
all g
irls,
scor
es im
prov
ed in
thre
e ou
t of f
our
Life
Ski
lls D
imen
sions
(on
the
Life
Ski
lls D
evel
opm
ent
Scal
e-Ad
oles
cent
For
m) w
here
as b
oys i
mpr
oved
on
only
on
e di
men
sion.
Boy
s sho
wed
impr
ovem
ent o
n th
ree
dim
ensio
ns (A
ttitu
de To
war
d Su
icid
e &
You
th S
elf R
epor
t m
easu
res)
with
no
impr
ovem
ent a
mon
g gi
rls.
Mod
erat
e qu
ality
ratin
g.
Diffi
cult
to d
iscer
n w
hich
di
men
sions
are
bei
ng
refe
renc
ed.
Nas
eri,
2014
Delin
quen
t ado
lesc
ent b
oys
Life
and
soci
al sk
ills t
rain
ing
Phys
ical
and
ver
bal a
ggre
ssio
n of
ado
lesc
ent b
oys
signi
fican
tly re
duce
d be
caus
e of
life
skill
s tra
inin
g,
incl
udin
g an
ger c
ontr
ol, p
robl
em so
lvin
g an
d de
cisio
n-m
akin
g, se
lf-co
gniti
on, c
onfr
ontin
g st
ress
, and
co
mm
unic
ation
skill
s.
All m
ale,
targ
eted
. Str
ong
qual
ity ra
ting.
Parv
athy
, 201
5St
uden
ts a
ged
14-1
8 ye
ars
Life
skill
s edu
catio
nSt
udy
reve
aled
sign
ifica
nt im
pact
of L
ife S
kills
Edu
catio
n tr
aini
ng o
n ad
oles
cent
s (m
easu
res i
nclu
ded
know
ledg
e le
vel,
self-
awar
enes
s, e
mpa
thy
skill
)
Wea
k qu
ality
ratin
g, n
o fu
rthe
r det
ails
on st
udy
prov
ided
.
Tutt
le, 2
006
Stud
ents
age
d 12
& 1
6 ye
ars
Cogn
itive
beh
avio
ral l
ife sk
ills t
rain
ing
Tren
ds in
the
data
seen
with
phy
sical
and
men
tal
heal
th im
prov
ing
sligh
tly fo
r all
subj
ects
, as d
id th
eir
educ
ation
al a
nd v
ocati
onal
stat
us.
Wea
k qu
ality
ratin
g.
Vata
nkha
h, 2
014
High
scho
ol st
uden
tsLi
fe sk
ills e
duca
tion
Resu
lts sh
owed
life
skill
s is e
ffecti
ve o
n in
crea
sing
self-
este
em.
Wea
k qu
ality
ratin
g.
Yada
v, 20
09St
uden
ts a
ged
15-1
7 ye
ars
Life
skill
s edu
catio
nSu
bjec
ts im
prov
ed si
gnifi
cant
ly in
pos
t-con
ditio
n on
se
lf-es
teem
, em
otion
al, e
duca
tiona
l, to
tal a
djus
tmen
t, an
d em
path
y. B
ut, n
o sig
nific
ant d
iffer
ence
was
foun
d on
so
cial
adj
ustm
ent i
n pr
e- a
nd p
ost-c
ondi
tion.
Wea
k qu
ality
ratin
g.
Chau
dhar
y, 20
08St
uden
ts a
ged
13-1
5 ye
ars
Life
skill
s edu
catio
nLi
fe sk
ills e
duca
tion
impr
oved
thei
r sel
f-im
age
as w
ell a
s bo
oste
d th
eir c
onfid
ence
leve
l.W
eak
qual
ity ra
ting.
Jam
es, 2
006
Grad
e 9
stud
ents
Life
skill
s and
HIV
/AID
S ed
ucati
on p
rogr
amSc
hool
s whe
re th
e pr
ogra
m w
as p
artia
lly im
plem
ente
d fo
und
no si
gnifi
cant
ly d
iffer
ent r
espo
nses
on
mos
t va
riabl
es fr
om th
e re
spon
ses o
f stu
dent
s in
the
cont
rol
scho
ols.
The
full
prog
ram
did
not
influ
ence
beh
avio
r in
term
s of c
ondo
m u
se in
the
long
term
indi
catin
g th
at c
ondo
m u
sing
beha
vior
s req
uire
s mor
e th
an ju
st
know
ledg
e, p
ositi
ve a
ttitu
des,
and
bel
iefs
abo
ut it
s use
.
Mod
erat
e qu
ality
ratin
g.
Giva
udan
, 200
7St
uden
ts m
ean
age
= 15
.97
year
sA
Team
Aga
inst
AID
SEff
ect o
n de
pend
ent v
aria
bles
show
that
the
expe
rimen
tal g
roup
impr
oved
sign
ifica
ntly
in a
ll va
riabl
es
(sel
f-kno
wle
dge,
dec
ision
-mak
ing,
self-
effica
cy c
ondo
m
use,
nor
ms a
bout
con
dom
use
, atti
tude
s tow
ards
co
ndom
s, k
now
ledg
e ab
out H
IV/A
IDS,
com
mun
icati
on
on se
xual
ity) a
fter t
he im
plem
enta
tion
of li
fe sk
ills i
n th
e th
ree
diffe
rent
var
iabl
e le
vels
(per
sona
l, in
terv
entio
n,
outc
ome)
Mod
erat
e qu
ality
ratin
g.

95
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
20. O
’Co
nno
r C
A, D
yso
n J,
Co
wd
ell F
, Wat
son
R. D
o u
nive
rsal
sch
oo
l-b
ased
men
tal h
ealt
h p
rom
oti
on
pro
gra
mm
es im
pro
ve t
he m
enta
l hea
lth
and
em
oti
ona
l wel
lbei
ng o
f yo
ung
peo
ple
? A
lite
ratu
re
revi
ew. J
our
nal o
f C
linic
al N
ursi
ng [
Inte
rnet
]. 2
018
Feb
[ci
ted
201
9 Ju
ly 2
6]; 2
7(3-
4):e
412-
e426
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/2
8926
147
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
5-18
yea
rs o
ld,
cate
goriz
ed a
s: p
rimar
y sc
hool
age
d ch
ildre
n (5
-10
year
s old
); se
cond
ary
scho
ol a
ged
child
ren
(11-
18 y
ears
old
)
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 199
5-20
15#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 2
9 .
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed te
ens
ages
13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
re
leva
nt a
ge g
roup
: sec
onda
ry sc
hool
age
d ch
ildre
n (1
1-18
ye
ars o
ld)
14-1
6 ye
ars o
ld (B
arne
s 201
2), 1
2-14
yea
rs o
ld (D
e An
da, 1
998;
M
erre
ll, 2
008)
, 13-
15 y
ears
old
(Eco
nom
ou, 2
012)
, 13-
14 y
ears
ol
d (E
ssle
r, 20
06),
10-1
4 ye
ars o
ld (H
ampe
l, 20
07),
7-14
yea
rs
old
(Kim
ber,
2008
), 14
-18
year
s old
(Kin
g, 2
011)
, 12-
16 y
ears
old
(K
uyke
n, 2
013)
, 15-
18 y
ears
old
(Met
z, 2
013)
, 14-
16 y
ears
old
(R
ickw
ood,
200
4), 1
3-16
yea
rs o
ld (S
akel
lari,
201
4)
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: CIN
AHL,
M
EDLI
NE,
Psy
cIN
FO, E
RIC,
Edu
catio
n Re
sear
ch C
ompl
ete.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: A
utho
r stil
l fee
ls co
nfide
nt to
co
nclu
de M
H an
d EW
pro
gram
s are
of v
alue
, but
ca
lls fo
r fur
ther
eva
luati
ve st
udie
s. 1
) Red
uctio
n in
st
ress
pos
t-int
erve
ntion
was
foun
d in
9 st
udie
s and
5
stud
ies f
ound
no
impr
ovem
ent,
4 st
udie
s rep
orte
d in
crea
ses i
n co
ping
skill
s/st
rate
gies
use
d by
chi
ldre
n th
at re
ceiv
ed in
terv
entio
ns. 2
) 4 st
udie
s fou
nd
signi
fican
t inc
reas
e in
soci
al sk
ills/
func
tioni
ng w
hen
com
parin
g pr
e- a
nd p
ost-t
est s
core
s and
Dur
lak
et a
l., 2
011
and
Skla
d et
al.,
201
2 bo
th fo
und
that
in
clud
ed st
udie
s sho
wed
resu
lts o
f enh
ance
d so
cial
sk
ills/
incr
ease
d le
vels
of p
ositi
ve so
cial
beh
avio
r. 5
stud
ies n
oted
evi
denc
e of
redu
ced
anxi
ety
leve
ls an
d w
ere
sust
aine
d at
12
mon
th fo
llow
up.
3) 4
stud
ies
repo
rted
incr
ease
d kn
owle
dge
of M
H. M
ixed
resu
lts
rega
rdin
g atti
tude
s tow
ards
MH.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: S
ome
stud
ies h
ad re
lativ
ely
smal
l sa
mpl
es, m
akin
g ge
nera
lizin
g di
fficu
lt. H
igh
leve
ls of
att
rition
was
a p
robl
em fo
r 4 o
f the
29
stud
ies.
Som
e bi
as w
as e
vide
nt in
stud
ies l
ike
Kram
er e
t al.,
200
9.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Inte
rven
tions
aim
ed a
t im
prov
ing
Men
tal h
ealth
(MH)
and
em
otion
al w
ell-b
eing
(EW
) defi
ned
as :
“bei
ng h
appy
and
co
nfide
nt a
nd n
ot a
nxio
us o
r dep
ress
ed…
the
abili
ty to
be
auto
nom
ous,
pro
blem
-sol
ve, m
anag
e em
otion
s, e
xper
ienc
e em
path
y, be
resil
ient
and
atte
ntive
”12
out
of 2
9 uti
lized
SEL
. Oth
er in
clud
ed st
ress
man
agem
ent
inte
rven
tions
, min
dful
ness
inte
rven
tions
, anx
iety
and
co
ping
skill
s int
erve
ntion
s, a
nd M
H ed
ucati
on/a
nti-s
tigm
a in
terv
entio
ns.
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: E
nglis
h la
ngua
ge, r
epor
ts o
f un
iver
sal i
nter
venti
ons,
con
duct
ed in
scho
ol
envi
ronm
ent
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equi
vale
nt (s
peci
fy):
(see
abo
ve)
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Exc
lude
d re
port
s of t
arge
t in
terv
entio
n, in
terv
entio
ns in
non
-sch
ool
envi
ronm
ents
, and
pap
ers e
valu
ating
SEL
in
terv
entio
ns p
rior t
o 20
08 th
at h
ave
been
in
clud
ed in
two
SEL
revi
ews m
entio
ned
(Dur
lak
et a
l. 20
11; S
klad
et a
l. 20
12).
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Th
ree
them
es w
ere
iden
tified
: 1) h
elp
seek
ing
and
copi
ng (1
4 of
29
pap
ers)
2) s
ocia
l and
em
otion
al w
ell-b
eing
(20
of 2
9 pa
pers
) 3)
psy
cho-
educ
ation
al e
ffecti
vene
ss (a
bilit
y of
a p
rogr
am to
in
crea
se k
now
ledg
e of
MH
and
illne
ss a
s wel
l cha
nge
nega
tive
attitu
des/
belie
fs) (
8 of
29
pape
rs)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: a
nger
, an
xiet
y an
d bl
ood
pres
sure
, ang
er c
ontr
ol (B
arne
s, 2
012)
, se
lf-re
port
mea
sure
s of c
opin
g/re
laxa
tion
(De
Anda
, 199
8),
stud
ent a
ttitu
des/
belie
fs to
war
ds p
eopl
e w
ith m
enta
l illn
ess
(Eco
nom
ou, 2
012)
, kno
wle
dge
abou
t MH
(Ess
ler,
2006
), pe
rcei
ved
self-
effica
cy, p
erce
ived
stre
ss, u
se o
f ada
ptive
co
ping
stra
tegi
es (H
ampe
ll, 2
007)
, mea
sure
s of m
enta
l hea
lth/
asso
ciat
ed h
ealth
beh
avio
rs (K
imbe
r, 20
08),
suic
idal
idea
tion,
he
lp-s
eeki
ng b
ehav
iors
, abi
lity
to id
entif
y su
ppor
t (Ki
ng, 2
011)
, le
vels
of d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms,
leve
ls of
stre
ss (K
uyke
n, 2
013)
, kn
owle
dge
of so
cial
and
em
otion
al c
once
pts a
nd e
ffecti
ve
copi
ng st
rate
gies
(Mer
rell,
200
8), e
moti
onal
regu
latio
n,
emoti
onal
aw
aren
ess,
stre
ss le
vels
(Met
z, 2
013)
, kno
wle
dge
of M
H, b
elie
fs to
war
ds p
eopl
e w
ith M
H pr
oble
ms (
Rick
woo
d,
2004
), atti
tude
s tow
ards
MH
(Sak
ella
ri, 2
014)
.

96
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
env
ironm
ents
Coun
try(
ies)
: U.S
., Sc
otla
nd, S
outh
Afr
ica,
Sw
eden
, Can
ada,
Au
stra
lia, G
reec
e, E
ngla
nd, G
erm
any
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol, f
amily
, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Scho
ols
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Barn
es, 2
012
14-1
6 ye
ars o
ldLi
fe S
kills
Tra
inin
gRe
duce
d an
ger,
anxi
ety
and
bloo
d pr
essu
re, i
mpr
oved
an
ger c
ontr
olRe
lativ
ely
smal
l sam
ple
size/
high
leve
l of a
ttriti
on.
De A
nda,
199
812
-14
year
s old
Stre
ss m
anag
emen
t pro
gram
Impr
oved
cop
ing
stra
tegi
es, r
educ
ed le
vel o
f str
ess,
in
crea
sed
use
of re
laxa
tion
stra
tegi
esRa
ndom
izatio
n of
sam
ple
only
use
d fo
r fem
ale
parti
cipa
nts.
Sm
all s
ampl
e.
Econ
omou
, 201
213
-15
year
s old
MH
anti-
stigm
a in
terv
entio
nPo
sitive
cha
nges
in st
uden
ts’ b
elie
fs a
nd a
ttitu
des
tow
ards
peo
ple
with
men
tal i
llnes
s.N
o fo
llow
-up
post
-in
terv
entio
n. C
onve
nien
ce
sam
plin
g.
Essle
r, 20
0613
-14
year
s old
Educ
ation
al in
terv
entio
n to
cha
lleng
e M
H sti
gma/
prom
ote
MH
Incr
ease
d kn
owle
dge
of M
HSa
me
quiz
used
pre
- and
po
st-in
terv
entio
n.
Ham
pel,
2007
10-1
4 ye
ars o
ldSt
ress
man
agem
ent p
rogr
amIn
crea
sed
perc
eive
d se
lf-effi
cacy
, les
s per
ceiv
ed st
ress
an
d m
ore
adap
tive
copi
ng a
t pos
t- an
d fo
llow
-up
asse
ssm
ent.
No
rand
omiza
tion,
no
follo
w-u
p aft
er 3
mon
ths.
Kim
ber,
2008
7-14
yea
rs o
ldSE
L Pr
ogra
mM
odes
t im
prov
emen
t on
men
tal h
ealth
and
ass
ocia
ted
heal
th b
ehav
iors
High
leve
l of a
ttriti
on.
Onl
y fu
lly c
ompl
eted
an
d co
rrec
tly c
ompl
eted
qu
estio
nnai
res w
ere
anal
yzed
.
King
, 201
114
-18
year
s old
Suic
ide
prev
entio
n an
d de
pres
sion
awar
enes
s pr
ogra
mRe
duce
d su
icid
al id
eatio
n, in
crea
se in
hel
p-se
ekin
g be
havi
ors,
impr
oved
abi
lity
to id
entif
y su
ppor
tHi
gh le
vel o
f att
rition
. Sa
mpl
e ch
ose
may
lim
it ge
nera
lizab
ility
.
Kuyk
en, 2
013
12-1
6 ye
ars o
ldM
indf
ulne
ss p
rogr
amM
oder
ate
redu
ction
in lo
w-g
rade
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s im
med
iate
ly fo
llow
ing
inte
rven
tion/
at 3
mon
th fo
llow
-up
, red
uctio
n le
vels
of st
ress
at 3
mon
th fo
llow
-up.
Sam
ple
recr
uite
d fr
om
scho
ols w
ith p
rior i
nter
est
in th
e in
terv
entio
n.
Mer
rell,
200
812
-14
year
s old
SEL
Prog
ram
Incr
ease
d kn
owle
dge
of so
cial
and
em
otion
al c
once
pts
and
effec
tive
copi
ng st
rate
gies
.Re
lativ
ely
smal
l sam
ples
. N
o fo
llow
-up.
Met
z, 2
013
15-1
8 ye
ars o
ldM
indf
ulne
ss p
rogr
amIm
prov
ed e
moti
onal
regu
latio
n, e
moti
onal
aw
aren
ess.
De
crea
se in
psy
chos
omati
c co
mpl
aint
s and
stre
ss le
vels.
Conv
enie
nce
sam
plin
g.
Rick
woo
d, 2
004
14-1
6 ye
ars o
ldEd
ucati
onal
MH
Prog
ram
Incr
ease
d kn
owle
dge
and
redu
ced
nega
tive
belie
fs a
bout
pe
ople
with
MH
prob
lem
s.N
o fo
llow
-up,
no
rand
omiza
tion,
diff
eren
ces
in b
asel
ine
data
for
inte
rven
tion
vs c
ontr
ol
grou
ps.
Sake
llari,
201
413
-16
year
s old
Educ
ation
al M
H Pr
ogra
mIm
prov
ed a
ttitu
des t
owar
ds M
H.Re
lativ
ely
smal
l sam
ple.

97
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
21. O
’Rei
lly M
, Svi
ryd
zenk
a N
, Ad
ams
S, D
og
ra N
. Rev
iew
of
men
tal h
ealt
h p
rom
oti
on
inte
rven
tio
ns in
sch
oo
ls. S
oci
al P
sych
iatr
y an
d P
sych
iatr
ic E
pid
emio
log
y [I
nter
net]
. 201
8 Ju
ly [
cite
d 2
019
July
26
]; 5
3(7)
:647
-662
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/2
9752
493
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
prim
ary
scho
ol
thro
ugh
high
scho
ol st
uden
tsDa
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: 2
007-
2017
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
10
As n
oted
by
auth
or: S
earc
h te
rmin
olog
y w
as ta
rget
ed to
fo
cus o
n m
enta
l hea
lth p
rom
otion
, so
rele
vant
stud
ies
may
hav
e be
en e
xclu
ded
if th
ey fa
iled
to u
se sp
ecifi
c te
rmin
olog
y.M
etho
ds u
sed
wer
e of
var
iabl
e qu
ality
, aut
hors
wer
e va
gue
in d
escr
iptio
n of
the
inte
rven
tion.
.
Coul
d no
t ide
ntify
a
spec
ific
guid
ing
fram
ewor
k fo
r the
revi
ew.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed te
ens
ages
13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
re
leva
nt a
ge g
roup
: Gr
ades
5-9
(age
d 11
-15
year
s old
) (N
eilse
n et
al.,
201
5), 1
0-15
ye
ars o
ld (F
ranz
& P
aulu
s, 2
009)
, Gra
des 4
-9 (K
imbe
r et a
l.,
2008
), 12
-15
year
s old
(Har
alds
son
et a
l., 2
008)
, Gra
des 7
-12
(But
zer e
t al.,
201
7), s
econ
dary
scho
ol st
uden
ts (L
endr
um e
t al
., 20
13).
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: L
imite
d ad
vanc
emen
ts o
f un
iver
sal i
nter
venti
ons i
n th
e de
cade
pre
cedi
ng
the
revi
ew. D
espi
te m
etho
dolo
gica
l iss
ues,
ther
e is
still
prom
ise in
pur
suin
g un
iver
sal w
ellb
eing
in
terv
entio
ns.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Men
tal h
ealth
pro
moti
on: a
ction
s to
crea
te li
ving
con
ditio
ns a
nd
envi
ronm
ents
that
supp
ort m
enta
l hea
lth a
nd a
llow
peo
ple
to
adap
t and
mai
ntai
n he
alth
y lif
esty
les (
WHO
).
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: SCO
PUS,
ER
ICAd
oles
cent
-Spe
cific
Fin
ding
s: (s
ee ta
ble)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equi
vale
nt (s
peci
fy):
“U
p” (N
eilse
n et
al.,
201
5), M
indM
atter
s (Fr
anz &
Pau
lus,
20
09),
Soci
al a
nd E
moti
onal
Tra
inin
g (S
ET) (
Kim
ber e
t al.,
200
8),
Heal
th p
rom
otion
pro
gram
adm
inist
ered
as a
scho
ol su
bjec
t ea
ch w
eek
for o
ne y
ear (
Hara
ldss
on e
t al.,
200
8), Y
oga
incl
udin
g m
indf
ulne
ss a
nd m
edita
tion
(But
zer e
t al.,
201
7) S
ocia
l and
Em
otion
al A
spec
ts o
f Lea
rnin
g (S
EAL)
app
roac
h (L
endr
um e
t al
., 20
13).
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudy
mus
t be
a un
iver
sal
men
tal h
ealth
pro
gram
(or e
quiv
alen
t); m
ust
be a
who
le-s
choo
l int
erve
ntion
, pro
gram
, fr
amew
ork,
mod
el, o
r set
of t
ools,
invo
lvin
g m
any
leve
ls of
scho
ol p
erso
nnel
; tar
get
popu
latio
n m
ust b
e sc
hool
age
(gen
eral
ly
from
3-1
8).
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: pro
moti
on o
f men
tal h
ealth
and
/or w
ellb
eing
.Re
view
exc
lusi
on c
riter
ia—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudy
cou
ld n
ot b
e pa
rt
of a
boo
k ch
apte
r, ed
itoria
l, or
gui
danc
e do
cum
ent;
stud
y co
uld
not b
e fo
cuse
d on
ris
k fa
ctor
s or r
elat
ed to
thes
e; st
udy
coul
d no
t sim
ply
be p
lann
ing,
dev
elop
men
t, or
pi
lot o
f an
inte
rven
tion;
stud
y co
uld
not
targ
et c
hild
ren
with
pre
-exi
sting
men
tal
heal
th p
rogr
ams.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es:
Self-
repo
rt o
f soc
ial a
nd e
moti
onal
com
pete
nce
(Nei
lsen
et a
l.,
2015
), po
sitive
men
tal h
ealth
/sel
f-rep
ort o
f soc
ial c
ompe
tenc
e (F
ranz
& P
aulu
s, 2
009)
, sel
f-rep
orte
d in
tern
alizi
ng, s
elf-r
epor
ted
exte
rnal
izing
, sel
f-rep
orte
d m
aste
ry, c
onte
ntm
ent i
n sc
hool
, bu
llyin
g (K
imbe
r et a
l., 2
008)
, sen
se o
f wel
lbei
ng, s
elf-r
elia
nce
(Har
alds
son
et a
l., 2
008)
, sel
f-rep
orts
on
moo
d, st
ress
, sle
ep,
acad
emic
per
form
ance
(But
zer e
t al.,
201
7), s
ocia
l and
em
otion
al sk
ills,
beh
avio
r or m
enta
l diffi
culti
es (L
endr
um e
t al.,
20
13).
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): Co
uld
not b
e id
entifi
ed.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
deg
ree
of sh
ared
exp
ecta
tions
, com
mun
icati
on
amon
g gr
oups
, ass
essm
ent o
f sch
ool e
nviro
nmen
t, bu
llyin
g le
vels
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
env
ironm
ents
Coun
try(
ies)
: Den
mar
k, G
erm
any,
Swed
en, U
.S.,
U.K.
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol, f
amily
, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Scho
ol

98
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Nei
lsen
et a
l., 2
015
11-1
5 ye
ars o
ldU
p: p
rom
oting
men
tal h
ealth
. Com
pose
d of
4
com
pone
nts:
acti
vitie
s for
chi
ldre
n, d
evel
opm
ent o
f st
aff sk
ills,
invo
lvem
ent o
f par
ents
, ini
tiativ
es in
the
ever
yday
life
of s
choo
ls
Stati
stica
lly si
gnifi
cant
cha
nge
of c
hild
ren
repo
rting
hi
gh so
cial
and
em
otion
al c
ompe
tenc
e fr
om b
efor
e th
e in
terv
entio
n (3
3.3%
) to
after
(40.
8%).
Fran
z & P
aulu
s, 2
009
10-1
5 ye
ars o
ldM
indM
atter
s: A
ustr
alia
n pr
ogra
m e
ncou
ragi
ng
resp
ect/
tole
ranc
e an
d in
volv
es a
rang
e of
scho
ol
pers
onne
l and
chi
ldre
n. E
ncou
rage
s res
ilien
ce,
com
mun
icati
on, p
robl
em-s
olvi
ng.
Som
e ch
ange
s in
positi
ve m
enta
l hea
lth, s
ome
impr
ovem
ent i
n so
cial
com
pete
nce.
Effe
cts w
ere
min
imal
.
Kim
ber e
t al.,
200
8Gr
ades
4-9
SET:
del
iver
ed b
y cl
ass t
each
ers d
urin
g sc
hool
ho
urs.
Cov
ers s
elf-a
war
enes
s, m
anag
ing
emoti
ons,
em
path
y, m
otiva
tion,
soci
al c
ompe
tenc
e.
Positi
ve o
utco
mes
ove
r 3 y
ears
in 5
out
of 7
var
iabl
es
(sel
f-rep
ort i
nter
naliz
ing,
ext
erna
lizin
g, m
aste
ry, ‘
I Th
ink
I Am
’, and
con
tent
men
t in
scho
ol).
Effec
t size
s w
ere
smal
l to
med
ium
(0.0
7 to
0.6
0). S
igni
fican
t in
tera
ction
s bet
wee
n SE
T an
d no
n-SE
T sc
hool
s on
all
but o
ne o
utco
me
varia
ble
acro
ss 5
yea
rs (p
artic
ular
ly
exte
rnal
izing
/inte
rnal
izing
beh
avio
rs).
Bully
ing
leve
ls re
mai
ned
cons
isten
tly lo
w in
SET
scho
ols c
ompa
red
to
non-
SET
scho
ols.
Hara
ldss
on e
t al.,
200
812
-15
year
s old
25-3
0 le
sson
s of a
hea
lth p
rom
otion
pro
gram
. Str
ess
inte
rven
tion
adm
inist
ered
by
phys
ioth
erap
ist.
At b
asel
ine
no st
atisti
cally
sign
ifica
nt d
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n tw
o gr
oups
. Tho
se w
ith st
ress
inte
rven
tion
mai
ntai
ned
thei
r sen
se o
f wel
lbei
ng a
nd th
ose
with
out d
eter
iora
ted.
N
o st
atisti
cally
sign
ifica
nt d
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n gr
oups
in
term
s of s
elf-r
elia
nce.
Butz
er e
t al.,
201
7Gr
ades
7-1
235
min
ute
long
Yog
a se
ssio
ns d
eliv
ered
1-2
tim
es
per w
eek
inte
grat
ed in
to P
E cu
rric
ulum
. Inc
lude
d m
indf
ulne
ss/m
edita
tion.
Foc
used
on
stre
ss
man
agem
ent,
emoti
onal
regu
latio
n, c
onfid
ence
bu
ildin
g, p
rom
oting
pee
r rel
ation
ship
s.
44%
had
a p
ositi
ve v
iew
of t
he c
lass
, 25%
had
neg
ative
, an
d th
e re
st m
ixed
. 69%
felt
it he
lped
raise
moo
d an
d m
anag
e st
ress
. 62%
felt
it ha
d a
positi
ve e
ffect
on
sleep
. 25%
felt
it ha
d a
positi
ve e
ffect
on
acad
emic
pe
rfor
man
ce.
Lend
rum
et a
l., 2
013
Seco
ndar
y sc
hool
stud
ents
SEAL
for a
dole
scen
ts w
hole
scho
ol fr
amew
ork.
Sc
hool
visi
ted
once
per
term
ove
r 5 te
rms.
N
o re
port
ed im
pact
on
outc
omes
in so
cial
and
em
otion
al
skill
s, b
ehav
ior o
r men
tal d
ifficu
lties
. Dem
onst
rate
d a
need
for g
reat
er a
war
enes
s of e
moti
onal
hea
lth a
nd
wel
lbei
ng in
scho
ols.
Sch
ool s
taff
need
to b
e be
tter
supp
orte
d an
d in
crea
se th
eir s
kills
.

99
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
22. P
and
ey A
, Hal
e D
, Das
S, G
od
din
gs
AL,
Bla
kem
ore
SJ,
Vin
er R
M. E
ffec
tive
ness
of
univ
ersa
l sel
f-re
gul
atio
n-b
ased
inte
rven
tio
ns in
chi
ldre
n an
d a
do
lesc
ents
: A s
yste
mat
ic r
evie
w a
nd m
eta-
anal
ysis
. JA
MA
Ped
iatr
ics
[Int
erne
t]. 2
018
Jun
1 [c
ited
201
9 Ju
ly 2
6]; 1
72(6
):566
-575
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/2
9710
097
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
Chi
ldre
n an
d ad
oles
cent
s age
d 0
to 1
9 ye
ars.
Da
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: B
egin
ning
of
data
base
arc
hive
s - Ju
ly 2
016
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
49
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: 1
2-15
yea
rs o
ld (B
ower
s et
al.,
201
5), C
hild
ren
ages
7-1
4 (D
e W
it et
al.,
200
7), G
rade
s 9-
12 (F
ishbe
in e
t al.,
201
6), G
rade
s 11
to 1
2 (N
oggl
e et
al.,
20
12),
Stud
ents
from
3 p
ublic
scho
ols (
mea
n ag
e of
13.
6 ye
ars)
(C
ecch
ini e
t al.,
200
7), G
rade
s 9 to
10
(Cos
tigan
et a
l., 2
016)
.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: P
ositi
ve o
utco
mes
on
heal
th a
nd
soci
al m
easu
res s
uch
as a
cade
mic
ach
ieve
men
t, so
cial
skill
s, m
enta
l hea
lth, b
ehav
iora
l pro
blem
s,
cond
uct d
isord
ers,
scho
ol su
spen
sions
, and
su
bsta
nce
abus
e w
ere
repo
rted
. Stu
dy fi
ndin
gs
sugg
est t
hat S
R in
terv
entio
ns a
re e
ffecti
ve a
nd th
at
impr
ovem
ents
in e
duca
tiona
l, he
alth
, and
soci
al
outc
omes
can
follo
w im
prov
emen
ts in
SR.
Diff
eren
t ty
pes o
f int
erve
ntion
s can
be
used
to im
prov
e se
lf-re
gula
tion,
and
man
y of
thes
e st
rate
gies
app
ear
effec
tive.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: T
he S
R ou
tcom
e m
easu
res w
ere
not
unifo
rm, a
nd th
ere
was
subs
tanti
al h
eter
ogen
eity
in th
eir
repo
rting
. Con
sider
ing
this
limita
tion
of th
e ev
iden
ce
base
of S
R in
terv
entio
ns, t
he a
utho
rs re
com
men
d th
at
futu
re re
sear
ch in
SR
shou
ld b
e di
rect
ed to
eva
luat
e st
anda
rd m
etho
ds o
f rep
ortin
g SR
out
com
es. T
he
gene
raliz
abili
ty o
f the
rese
arch
find
ings
may
also
be
affec
ted
by th
e su
bsta
ntial
num
ber o
f stu
dies
con
duct
ed
in th
e U
nite
d St
ates
.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
U
nive
rsal
inte
rven
tions
des
igne
d to
pro
mot
e se
lf-re
gula
tion
in
child
ren
and
adol
esce
nts.
Self-
regu
latio
n (S
R): a
psy
chol
ogic
al c
onst
ruct
whi
ch
enco
mpa
sses
a ra
nge
of im
port
ant c
ompe
tenc
ies,
incl
udin
g th
e ca
paci
ty fo
r con
trol
ling
one’
s em
otion
s, th
e ab
ility
to h
ave
positi
ve in
tera
ction
s with
oth
ers,
the
capa
city
for a
void
ing
inap
prop
riate
or a
ggre
ssiv
e ac
tions
, and
the
abili
ty to
car
ry o
ut
self-
dire
cted
lear
ning
. Cog
nitiv
e pr
oces
s con
trib
uting
to S
R ar
e oft
en re
ferr
ed to
as e
xecu
tive
func
tions
, and
they
incl
ude
the
abili
ty to
dire
ct o
r foc
us a
ttenti
on, s
hift
pers
pecti
ve, a
nd a
dapt
fle
xibl
y to
cha
nges
(cog
nitiv
e fle
xibi
lity)
; ret
ain
info
rmati
on
(wor
king
mem
ory)
; and
inhi
bit a
utom
atic
or im
pulsi
ve
resp
onse
s to
achi
eve
a go
al, s
uch
as p
robl
em-s
olvi
ng (i
mpu
lse
cont
rol).
Code
d in
to 5
cat
egor
ies:
cur
ricul
um in
terv
entio
ns, p
hysic
al
activ
ity a
nd e
xerc
ise in
terv
entio
ns, m
indf
ulne
ss a
nd y
oga
inte
rven
tions
, par
entin
g an
d fa
mily
-focu
sed
inte
rven
tions
, and
ot
her s
kills
-bas
ed tr
aini
ng.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: MED
LIN
E,
PubM
ed, P
sycI
NFO
, EM
BASE
, ERI
C, C
INAH
L,
Briti
sh E
duca
tion
Inde
x, C
hild
Dev
elop
men
t an
d Ad
oles
cent
Stu
dies
via
EBS
CO, a
nd
CEN
TRAL
.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
Stud
ent S
ucce
ss S
kills
(SSS
) Pro
gram
(B
ower
s et a
l., 2
015)
, Big
Bro
ther
Big
Sist
er P
rogr
am (D
e W
it et
al.,
200
7), M
indf
ul Y
oga
(Fish
bein
et a
l., 2
016)
, Krip
alu
Yoga
(N
oggl
e et
al.,
201
2), P
erso
nal &
Soc
ial R
espo
nsib
ility
mod
el
(Cec
chin
i et a
l., 2
007)
, Hig
h-in
tens
ity in
terv
al tr
aini
ng (H
IIT)
(Cos
tigan
et a
l., 2
016)
.
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es w
ere
elig
ible
if th
ey
1) re
port
ed ra
ndom
ized
clin
ical
tria
ls an
d cl
uste
r ran
dom
ized
tria
ls; 2
) eva
luat
ed
univ
ersa
l int
erve
ntion
s des
igne
d to
impr
ove
SR in
chi
ldre
n an
d ad
oles
cent
s (ag
e 0-
19
year
s); a
nd 3
) inc
lude
d at
leas
t 1 c
hild
-bas
ed
outc
ome
asso
ciat
ed w
ith S
R sk
ills.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Se
lf-re
gula
tion,
dist
al h
ealth
and
soci
al o
utco
mes
(e.g
., ac
adem
ic a
chie
vem
ent,
subs
tanc
e ab
use,
psy
chol
ogic
al st
ress
, w
ell-b
eing
)
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Stu
dies
wer
e ex
clud
ed if
they
fa
iled
to m
eet t
he in
clus
ion
crite
ria d
etai
led
abov
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: S
choo
l co
nnec
tedn
ess,
SR
deve
lopm
ent (
Bow
ers e
t al.,
201
5), S
ocia
l sk
ills (
self-
cont
rol),
soci
al a
nxie
ty (D
e W
it et
al.,
200
7), S
R,
psyc
holo
gica
l str
ess,
subs
tanc
e us
e (F
ishbe
in e
t al.,
201
6), S
R,
psyc
holo
gica
l wel
l-bei
ng (N
oggl
e et
al.,
201
2), S
elf-c
ontr
ol, f
air
play
(Cec
chin
i et a
l., 2
007)
, Exe
cutiv
e fu
nctio
n, p
sych
olog
ical
w
ell-b
eing
, psy
chol
ogic
al d
istre
ss, a
nd p
hysic
al se
lf-co
ncep
t (C
ostig
an e
t al.,
201
6)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A

100
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18-
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): M
ultip
leCo
untr
y(ie
s): U
S, U
K, C
anad
a, E
urop
ean
coun
trie
s St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s):
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, sc
hool
, fa
mily
, wor
k, re
crea
tion,
OST
): Sc
hool
, Fam
ily, I
ndiv
idua
l
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Bow
ers,
201
512
-15
year
s old
Stud
ent S
ucce
ss S
kills
(SSS
) Pro
gram
(Cur
ricul
um
inte
rven
tion)
Resu
lts fr
om m
ultip
le p
ath
anal
yses
indi
cate
d m
odel
fit
s bas
ed o
n SS
S pa
rtici
patio
n fo
r beh
avio
ral r
egul
ation
fo
r the
trea
tmen
t gro
up, f
eelin
gs o
f con
nect
edne
ss fo
r fe
mal
es in
the
trea
tmen
t gro
up, a
nd re
adin
g gr
owth
for
low
-ach
ievi
ng st
uden
ts.
De W
it, 2
007
Child
ren
ages
7-1
4Bi
g Br
othe
r Big
Sist
er P
rogr
am (F
amily
bas
ed
inte
rven
tions
)Th
ere
was
sign
ifica
nt b
enefi
t in
soci
al sk
ills i
n in
terv
entio
n gr
oup
com
pare
d to
con
trol
s. (s
ympt
oms o
f em
otion
al p
robl
ems,
sym
ptom
s of s
ocia
l anx
iety
).
Fish
bein
, 201
6Gr
ades
9-1
2M
indf
ul Y
oga
(Min
dful
ness
/Yog
a in
terv
entio
ns)
At p
ost-
test
, stu
dent
s in
the
yoga
con
ditio
n, a
s co
mpa
red
to c
ontr
ol st
uden
ts, e
xhib
ited
tren
ds to
war
d de
crea
sed
alco
hol u
se a
nd im
prov
ed te
ache
r-ra
ted
soci
al s
kills
(p <
.10)
; and
sho
wed
a n
on-s
igni
fican
t in
crea
se in
aro
usal
in re
spon
se to
rele
vant
stim
uli
as m
easu
red
in s
kin
cond
ucta
nce.
Sig
nific
ant e
ffect
s w
ere
not f
ound
on
hypo
thes
ized
prox
imal
mea
sure
s of
sel
f-reg
ulat
ion,
moo
d, m
indf
ulne
ss, o
r inv
olun
tary
en
gage
men
t cop
ing.
Nog
gle,
201
2Gr
ades
11
to 1
2Ki
rpal
u Yo
ga (M
indf
ulne
ss/Y
oga
inte
rven
tions
)Al
thou
gh P
E-as
-usu
al st
uden
ts sh
owed
dec
reas
es
in p
rimar
y ou
tcom
es, y
oga
stud
ents
mai
ntai
ned
or im
prov
ed. T
otal
moo
d di
stur
banc
e im
prov
ed in
yo
ga st
uden
ts a
nd w
orse
ned
in c
ontr
ols (
p =
.015
), as
did
Pro
file
of M
ood
Stat
es-S
hort
For
m (P
OM
S-SF
) Te
nsio
n-An
xiet
y su
bsca
le (p
= .0
02).
Alth
ough
pos
itive
aff
ect r
emai
ned
unch
ange
d in
bot
h, n
egati
ve a
ffect
sig
nific
antly
wor
sene
d in
con
trol
s whi
le im
prov
ing
in
yoga
stud
ents
(p =
.006
). Se
cond
ary
outc
omes
wer
e no
t sig
nific
ant.
Stud
ents
rate
d yo
ga fa
irly
high
, des
pite
m
oder
ate
atten
danc
e.
Cecc
hini
, 200
7St
uden
ts fr
om 3
pub
lic sc
hool
s (m
ean
age
of 1
3.6
year
s)Pe
rson
al &
Soc
ial R
espo
nsib
ility
mod
el (E
xerc
ise-
base
d in
terv
entio
ns)
Find
ings
reve
aled
that
subs
eque
nt to
the
inte
rven
tion
prog
ram
me,
exp
erim
enta
l gro
up A
impr
oved
per
sona
l fe
edba
ck, d
elay
ed g
ratifi
catio
n, se
lf-co
ntro
l, an
d pr
oces
s se
lf-re
gula
tion.
Exp
erim
enta
l gro
ups A
and
B sh
owed
an
impr
ovem
ent i
n in
dica
tors
of p
erso
nal a
nd so
cial
re
spon
sibili
ty re
gard
ing
enjo
ymen
t and
spor
tsm
ansh
ip
and
a de
crea
se in
var
iabl
es re
late
d to
the
driv
e to
win
, ro
ugh
play
, con
tact
foul
s, a
nd p
oor s
port
sman
ship
. No
signi
fican
t cha
nges
wer
e ob
serv
ed in
the
cont
rol g
roup
.
Costi
gan,
201
6Gr
ades
9 to
10
High
-inte
nsity
inte
rval
trai
ning
(HIIT
) (Ex
erci
se-
base
d in
terv
entio
ns)
Whi
le th
e re
sults
wer
e no
t sig
nific
ant,
ther
e w
as sm
all
chan
ge in
psy
chol
ogic
al w
ellb
eing
in th
e in
terv
entio
n gr
oup
com
pare
d to
con
trol
s.

101
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
23. P
enni
ngto
n A
, Wat
kins
M, B
agna
ll A
, et
al. 2
018,
Aug
. A S
yste
mat
ic R
evie
w o
f E
vid
ence
on
the
Imp
acts
of
Join
t D
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
on
Co
mm
unit
y W
ellb
eing
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
htt
ps:
//w
hatw
ork
swel
lbei
ng.o
rg/p
rod
uct/
join
t-d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
-ful
l-re
po
rt/.
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
NO
TES
All a
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
All
Date
rang
e: 1
980-
2016
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded
over
all:
29Li
mita
tions
incl
uded
thos
e co
mm
on in
evi
denc
e on
the
impa
cts o
f com
plex
soci
al d
eter
min
ants
of h
ealth
and
w
ellb
eing
. It i
s sur
prisi
ng th
at e
vide
nce
on th
e im
pact
s of
inte
rven
tions
that
seek
to m
eani
ngfu
lly in
volv
e co
m-
mun
ities
in d
ecisi
on-m
akin
g is
still
limite
d ne
arly
50
year
s afte
r pub
licati
on o
f the
Lad
der o
f Citi
zen
Parti
ci-
patio
n (A
rnst
ein,
196
9). T
his r
evie
w c
an b
e us
ed a
s a
star
ting
poin
t for
und
erst
andi
ng a
nd a
ddre
ssin
g lim
ita-
tions
and
gap
s in
the
curr
ent e
vide
nce
base
.
Alth
ough
the
vast
maj
ority
of t
he in
clud
ed st
udie
s fo
cuse
d on
a so
cial
ly d
isad
vant
aged
gro
up o
r gro
ups,
…
ver
y fe
w o
f the
stud
ies a
ttem
pted
to e
xam
ine
the
dist
ributi
on o
f im
pact
s fro
m in
volv
emen
t in
com
mun
ity
deci
sion-
mak
ing
acro
ss d
iffer
ent s
ocio
econ
omic
, eth
nic,
or
oth
er p
oten
tially
disa
dvan
tage
d gr
oups
.
Incl
uded
des
igns
wer
e qu
alita
tive,
mix
ed m
etho
ds,
and
case
stud
ies.
Alm
ost a
ll w
ere
cros
s-se
ction
al.
Onl
y on
e st
udy
incl
udin
g ch
ildre
n an
d ad
oles
cent
s w
as q
uanti
tativ
e (n
ot th
e on
e re
porti
ng o
utco
mes
for
yout
h).
Onl
y on
e st
udy
repo
rted
pe
rson
al o
utco
mes
for
youn
g pe
ople
(age
not
pr
ovid
ed).
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
up in
clud
ed re
leva
nt to
H.S
. age
d te
ens a
ges 1
3-18
- sp
ecify
by
age
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up:
7 st
udie
s inc
lude
d pa
rtici
pant
s who
wer
e ch
ildre
n or
ad
oles
cent
s.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d:
MED
LIN
E an
d M
EDLI
NE
In-P
roce
ss &
Oth
er
Non
- Ind
exed
Cita
tions
, Soc
ial S
cien
ces C
ita-
tion
Inde
x, ID
OX, P
sycI
NFO
.
High
-leve
l find
ings
: Des
pite
lim
itatio
ns, …
the
avai
labl
e ev
iden
ce c
lear
ly d
emon
stra
tes t
hat
ther
e is
a w
ide
rang
e of
pot
entia
l ben
efits
from
co
mm
unity
invo
lvem
ent i
n de
cisio
n-m
akin
g, w
hich
in
clud
e be
nefit
s to
both
par
ticip
ants
and
thei
r w
ider
com
mun
ities
.
The
revi
ew fi
ndin
gs …
[lin
k] in
crea
sed
leve
ls of
‘co
llecti
ve c
ontr
ol’ t
o be
tter c
omm
unity
hea
lth a
nd
wel
lbei
ng.
The
incl
uded
stud
ies p
rovi
de e
vide
nce
that
join
t de
cisi
on-m
akin
g in
terv
entio
ns c
an b
e su
cces
sful
in
help
ing
to d
eflec
t thr
eats
to th
e lo
cal (
livin
g) e
nvi-
ronm
ent a
nd in
resi
sting
‘hol
low
ing
out’
of n
eigh
-bo
urho
od se
rvic
es a
nd fa
ciliti
es, i
n m
aint
aini
ng
and
enha
ncin
g lo
cal c
ondi
tions
, and
in a
ttra
cting
re
sour
ces t
o cr
eate
bett
er p
lace
s to
live.
15 o
f the
29
incl
uded
stud
ies p
rovi
ded
som
e ev
i-de
nce
of p
oten
tial a
dver
se im
pact
s for
thos
e pa
r-tic
ipati
ng. …
adve
rse
impa
cts w
ere
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
prob
lem
s in
join
t dec
ision
-mak
ing
inte
rven
tion
impl
emen
tatio
n pr
oces
ses.
The
re w
as n
o ev
iden
ce
that
the
parti
cipa
nts m
ade
‘poo
r’ d
ecisi
ons l
eadi
ng
to n
egati
ve e
ffect
s.
Inte
rven
tion(
s) T
ype/
Nam
e--O
vera
ll
Empo
wer
men
t-bas
ed jo
int d
ecisi
on-m
akin
g in
terv
entio
ns a
t th
e co
mm
unity
leve
l ((p
olic
ies,
pla
ns, p
rogr
amm
es, o
r pro
j-ec
ts) 10
defi
ned
usin
g a
Theo
ry o
f Cha
nge:
The
Com
mun
ity
Wel
lbei
ng E
vide
nce
Prog
ram
me
cons
ortiu
m h
as p
rodu
ced
a w
orki
ng T
heor
y of
Cha
nge
(Sou
th e
t al.,
201
7), i
n w
hich
pow
er
is pr
opos
ed to
hav
e a
mec
hani
stic
and
cycl
ical
rela
tions
hip
with
com
mun
ity w
ellb
eing
. It i
s pro
pose
d th
at in
crea
sed
com
-m
unity
pow
er, e
xerc
ised
thro
ugh
mea
ning
ful p
artic
ipati
on in
de
cisio
n-m
akin
g an
d go
vern
ance
will
yie
ld im
prov
ed c
omm
u-ni
ty c
ondi
tions
and
indi
vidu
al b
enefi
ts, e
vent
ually
lead
ing
to
incr
ease
d co
mm
unity
(and
indi
vidu
al) w
ellb
eing
.
Inte
rven
tion
type
s ide
ntifie
d in
clud
ed: c
omm
unity
dev
elop
-m
ent;
urba
n re
new
al; p
artic
ipat
ory
budg
eting
; int
egra
ting
publ
ic se
rvic
es; c
itize
ns’ j
ury;
crim
e pr
even
tion;
pro
tect
and
en
hanc
e co
mm
unity
faci
lity;
nat
ural
disa
ster
reco
very
pla
n-ni
ng.
It is
the
first
syst
emati
c re
view
that
has
spec
ifica
lly e
xam
ined
th
e co
mm
unity
wel
lbei
ng- r
elat
ed im
pact
s of e
mpo
wer
men
t-ba
sed
parti
cipa
tory
inte
rven
tions
con
siste
nt w
ith A
rnst
ein’
s ‘d
egre
es o
f citi
zen
pow
er’.
All o
f the
inte
rven
tions
wer
e de
signe
d w
ith th
e in
tenti
on o
f em
pow
erin
g co
mm
unity
mem
-be
rs to
take
gre
ater
con
trol
of d
ecisi
ons t
hat a
ffect
thei
r liv
es,
alth
ough
som
e fe
ll sh
ort o
f thi
s int
entio
n du
ring
deliv
ery.
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria
This
revi
ew fo
cuss
es sp
ecifi
cally
on
curr
ent
evid
ence
from
eva
luati
ons o
f int
erve
ntion
s th
at a
re e
mpo
wer
men
t-bas
ed…
It o
nly
incl
udes
evi
denc
e fr
om e
valu
ation
s of i
nter
-ve
ntion
s …th
at c
onsid
ered
wel
lbei
ng-r
elat
-ed
out
com
es (q
ualit
ative
, or q
uanti
tativ
e). I
t on
ly in
clud
es e
vide
nce
from
eva
luati
ons o
f in
terv
entio
ns se
t in
the
‘livi
ng e
nviro
nmen
t’ of
com
mun
ities
13-1
8-ye
ar-o
ld (o
r sim
ilar)
Tee
n sp
ecifi
c fin
ding
s:
(or s
ee T
een
Tabl
e be
low
)
Enha
nced
per
sona
l dev
elop
men
t of y
outh
pa
rtici
pant
s (em
otion
al, s
ocia
l, co
nfide
nce,
fr
iend
ship
, org
aniza
tiona
l and
fina
ncia
l ski
lls)
(Bla
nche
t-Coh
en, 2
014)
No
othe
r you
th o
utco
mes
repo
rted
in re
view
.

102
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Inte
rven
tion(
s) T
ype/
Nam
e--e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
-yea
r-ol
ds o
r eq
uiva
lent
(spe
cify
) –
Yout
h-le
d de
cisio
n-m
akin
g in
com
mun
ity d
evel
opm
ent g
rant
s (B
lanc
het-C
ohen
, 201
4); u
rban
rene
wal
(ODP
M, 2
005)
; urb
an
rene
wal
/gar
deni
ng in
gre
en sp
ace
(Por
ter,
2013
); ur
ban
rene
wal
/red
esig
ning
a n
eigh
borh
ood
park
(Patt
on-L
opez
, 20
15);
com
mun
ity-in
itiat
ed u
rban
dev
elop
men
t (Se
men
za,
2007
).
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
Evi
denc
e fr
om
heal
thca
re, e
duca
tion,
or w
orkp
lace
se
tting
s, w
hich
hav
e be
en c
over
ed q
uite
ex
tens
ivel
y in
oth
er li
tera
ture
. .. T
radi
tiona
l he
alth
pro
moti
on in
terv
entio
ns (e
.g. t
o ad
dres
s phy
sical
exe
rcise
, sm
okin
g, a
lcoh
ol
cons
umpti
on, d
rug
misu
se) i
nvol
ving
pub
lic
parti
cipa
tion
have
also
bee
n ex
tens
ivel
y re
sear
ched
and
revi
ewed
pre
viou
sly.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall
--inc
lude
all
but h
ighl
ight
PSW
EB
outc
omes
Va
rious
mea
sure
s of c
omm
unity
wel
lbei
ng, d
efine
d as
: ‘Co
mm
unity
wel
lbei
ng is
abo
ut st
rong
net
wor
ks o
f re
latio
nshi
ps a
nd su
ppor
t bet
wee
n pe
ople
in a
com
mun
ity,
both
in c
lose
rela
tions
hips
and
frie
ndsh
ips,
and
betw
een
neig
hbou
rs a
nd a
cqua
inta
nces
’ … In
add
ition
, con
cept
s rel
ated
to
com
mun
ity w
ellb
eing
such
as ‘
soci
al w
ellb
eing
’, ‘so
cial
ca
pita
l’, ‘s
ocia
l coh
esio
n’, ‘
soci
al in
clus
ion’
, and
‘com
mun
ity
resil
ienc
e’ w
ere
also
con
sider
ed…
Whe
n [P
enni
ngto
n et
al.]
re
fer t
o ‘co
mm
unity
wel
lbei
ng’ t
hrou
ghou
t thi
s doc
umen
t, th
is in
clud
es th
e w
ellb
eing
of i
ndiv
idua
ls an
d gr
oups
, and
de
term
inan
ts o
f the
ir w
ellb
eing
, as c
ompo
nent
s of c
omm
unity
w
ellb
eing
. How
ever
, the
repo
rt n
otes
that
com
mun
ity
wel
lbei
ng is
mor
e th
an th
e su
m o
f ind
ivid
uals’
wel
lbei
ng.
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
)
Stan
dard
syst
emati
c re
view
met
hodo
logy
, as
des
crib
ed in
the
WW
C- W
B M
etho
ds
Guid
e (S
nape
et a
l., 2
017)
, and
is re
port
ed
follo
win
g PR
ISM
A an
d PR
ISM
A-Eq
uity
gu
idel
ines
.
Sear
ches
of g
rey
liter
atur
e w
ere
cond
ucte
d vi
a th
e Co
nfer
ence
Pro
ceed
ings
Cita
tions
In
dex
(CPC
I), P
roQ
uest
Diss
erta
tions
&
Thes
es, O
penG
rey,
Goog
le, G
oogl
e Sc
hola
r, an
d th
roug
h se
arch
es fo
r, an
d in
spec
tion
of,
spec
ialis
t web
sites
and
dat
abas
es.
A ca
ll fo
r evi
denc
e w
as is
sued
by
Wha
t W
orks
Wel
lbei
ng C
entr
e.
We
also
dire
ctly
con
tact
ed a
cade
mic
ex-
pert
s on
the
heal
th a
nd w
ellb
eing
impa
cts
of e
mpo
wer
men
t- ba
sed
inte
rven
tions
in
com
mun
ities
.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
-yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB.
En
hanc
ed p
erso
nal d
evel
opm
ent (
Blan
chet
-Coh
en, 2
014)
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for s
ocia
l/bu
ilt/s
truc
tura
l env
ironm
ents
an
d/or
peo
ple
surr
ound
ing
13-1
8-ye
ar-o
lds (
glob
al/
cultu
ral,
natio
nal,
com
mun
ity, i
nter
pers
onal
leve
l)--S
peci
fy
outc
ome
and
for w
hom
it is
mea
sure
d. V
ario
us m
easu
res o
f co
mm
unity
wel
lbei
ng
Setti
ng(s
): co
mm
uniti
es e
ngag
ed in
join
t dec
ision
-mak
ing
Coun
try(
ies)
: OEC
D co
untr
ies (
UK,
USA
, Can
ada,
Ital
y Is
rael
)St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s)Le
vel (
e.g.
, glo
bal/
cultu
ral,
natio
nal,
com
mun
ity,
inte
rper
sona
l): c
omm
unity

103
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
24. P
unuk
ollu
M, M
arq
ues
M. U
se o
f M
ob
ile A
pp
s an
d T
echn
olo
gie
s in
Chi
ld a
nd A
do
lesc
ent
Men
tal H
ealt
h: A
Sys
tem
atic
Rev
iew
. Evi
den
ce-B
ased
Men
tal H
ealt
h [I
nter
net]
. 201
9 Ju
ly 2
9 [c
ited
201
9 A
ug 1
3]; e
Pub
ahe
ad o
f p
rint
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//eb
mh.
bm
j.co
m/c
ont
ent/
earl
y/20
19/0
7/29
/eb
men
tal-
2019
-300
093.
info
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
10
to 2
9-ye
ar o
lds.
Da
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: 2
007-
2019
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
4
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: A
ges 1
0+ (J
ang
et a
l., 2
017)
, 13
-17
(Joha
nsso
n et
al.,
201
3), 1
4-24
(Kau
er e
t al.,
201
2),
stud
ents
age
d 13
-17
(Whi
ttake
r et a
l., 2
017)
.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: D
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n th
e in
terv
entio
n gr
oups
and
the
cont
rol g
roup
s was
no
n-sig
nific
ant o
n pe
rcen
tage
of t
hose
who
repo
rted
th
e pr
ogra
m to
be
help
ful.
No
othe
r hig
h-le
vel
obse
rvati
ons w
ere
mad
e (fo
cus o
n in
divi
dual
stud
ies
due
to sm
all n
umbe
r of s
tudi
es in
clud
ed).
The
auth
or n
otes
that
, bec
ause
of t
he a
ge
of p
artic
ipan
ts, t
he fu
ll eff
ect o
f the
var
ious
in
terv
entio
ns m
ay h
ave
been
obs
cure
d by
the
natu
ral
cour
se o
f chi
ld d
evel
opm
ent a
s the
re is
gen
eral
ly a
st
eep
incr
ease
in d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms t
hrou
ghou
t ad
oles
cenc
e.
The
auth
or a
ckno
wle
dges
that
a si
gnifi
cant
di
sadv
anta
ge o
f the
men
tal h
ealth
app
s and
te
chno
logi
es is
that
they
are
not
cur
rent
ly
com
mer
cial
ly a
vaila
ble
whi
ch m
eans
revi
ewer
s ca
nnot
ass
ess t
hem
for t
heir
qual
ity a
nd u
ser-
frie
ndlin
ess.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: O
nly
the
resu
lts o
f “fu
ll” st
udie
s ar
e in
clud
ed, w
hich
unf
ortu
nate
ly n
egle
cts p
oten
tially
av
aila
ble
liter
atur
e th
at w
ould
hav
e su
pple
men
ted
this
wor
k. T
he sm
all n
umbe
r of s
tudi
es a
nd sm
all s
ampl
e siz
es a
lso li
mits
the
pow
er o
f the
revi
ew, a
s doe
s the
va
ryin
g qu
ality
and
bia
s of t
he p
aper
s rev
iew
ed.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Da
taba
ses s
earc
hed
for r
evie
w:
MED
LIN
E, P
sycI
NFO
, EM
BASE
, Alli
ed
and
Com
plem
enta
ry M
edic
ine,
Hea
lth
Tech
nolo
gy A
sses
smen
t Gui
de, C
ochr
ane
Regi
ster
of C
ontr
olle
d Tr
ials.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
bel
ow)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or e
quiv
alen
t (sp
ecify
): M
obile
app
self-
asse
ssm
ent o
f de
pres
sion
and
suic
ide
risk
(Jang
et a
l., 2
017)
, Aut
omat
ed
tele
phon
e ca
lls w
ith in
tera
ctive
voi
ce re
spon
se a
skin
g pa
rtici
pant
s to
eval
uate
cur
rent
moo
d (Jo
hans
son
et a
l., 2
013)
, M
obile
app
self-
repo
rt o
n m
ood,
stre
ss, d
aily
acti
vitie
s, a
nd
copi
ng st
rate
gies
, (Ka
uer e
t al.,
201
2), M
obile
pho
ne-b
ased
m
ultim
edia
mes
sage
s (CB
T-ba
sed
text
s, v
ideo
mes
sage
s,
cart
oons
) (W
hitta
ker e
t al.,
201
7).
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es w
ere
incl
uded
if
they
wer
e fr
eely
acc
essib
le R
CTs o
r cro
ss-
secti
onal
stud
ies o
n m
enta
l hea
lth a
pps o
r te
chno
logi
es w
hich
had
a p
rimar
y ou
tcom
e m
easu
re re
late
d to
men
tal h
ealth
or
wel
lbei
ng a
nd in
clud
ed st
udy
parti
cipa
nts
unde
r 18
year
s of a
ge.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Dep
ress
ion
scor
es, a
nxie
ty sc
ores
, sui
cide
. Re
view
exc
lusi
on c
riter
ia—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es w
ere
excl
uded
if th
ey
faile
d to
mee
t the
incl
usio
n cr
iteria
det
aile
d ab
ove.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
-yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es:
depr
essio
n sc
ores
, sui
cide
(Jan
g et
al.,
201
7), m
ood
(Joha
nsso
n et
al.,
201
3), e
moti
onal
self-
awar
enes
s, d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms,
an
xiet
y, st
ress
, MH
outc
omes
(Kau
er e
t al.,
201
2), d
epre
ssio
n sc
ores
(Whi
ttake
r et a
l., 2
017)
.
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18-
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): ge
nera
l pra
ctice
clin
ics,
hom
es, i
npati
ent s
etting
sCo
untr
y(ie
s):
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Indi
vidu
al

104
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Jang
et a
l., 2
017
Ages
10+
Mob
ile a
pp se
lf-as
sess
men
t of d
epre
ssio
n an
d su
icid
e ris
kPo
sitive
self-
asse
ssm
ent s
core
s wer
e as
soci
ated
with
sig
nific
ant i
ncre
ased
risk
of d
epre
ssio
n an
d su
icid
e (a
nd
wer
e co
nsist
ent w
ith p
opul
ation
pro
porti
ons s
een
in
prev
ious
ly re
port
ed d
ata)
.
(App
ava
ilabl
e w
orld
wid
e bu
t onl
y in
Kor
ean
lang
uage
.) Hi
gh ri
sk o
f bia
s.
Joha
nsso
n et
al.,
201
313
-17
year
sAu
tom
ated
tele
phon
e ca
lls w
ith in
tera
ctive
voi
ce
resp
onse
ask
ing
parti
cipa
nts t
o ev
alua
te c
urre
nt
moo
d
IVR
is an
app
ropr
iate
follo
w-u
p m
etho
d fo
llow
ing
inpa
tient
psy
chia
tric
trea
tmen
t in
adol
esce
nts w
ith n
o di
ffere
nce
obse
rved
in m
ood
if fo
llow
ed u
p ev
ery
two
day
or e
very
four
day
s.
(Sam
ple
was
rece
nt
inpa
tient
s)
Kaue
r et a
l., 2
012
14-2
4 ye
ars
Mob
ile a
pp se
lf-re
port
on
moo
d, st
ress
, dai
ly
activ
ities
, and
cop
ing
stra
tegi
es.
Incr
ease
d em
otion
al se
lf-aw
aren
ess w
as p
redi
ctive
of
a d
ecre
ase
in d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms;
how
ever
, the
in
terv
entio
n w
as n
ot c
ausa
lly re
spon
sible
itse
lf fo
r th
e de
crea
se in
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s. In
terv
entio
n gr
oup
show
ed si
gnifi
cant
incr
ease
s in
ESA
with
m
ediu
m to
larg
e sig
nific
ant m
ain
effec
ts fo
r tim
e fo
r de
pres
sion,
anx
iety
, and
stre
ss. A
naly
sis su
gges
ted
that
pa
rtici
patio
n in
RCT
itse
lf en
hanc
ed m
enta
l hea
lthca
re
and
impr
oved
MH
outc
omes
.
(Sam
ple
was
pati
ents
, ap
p w
as u
sed
as a
clin
ical
as
sista
nce
tool
in g
ener
al
prac
tice)
Whi
ttake
r et a
l., 2
017
Stud
ents
age
d 13
-17
year
sM
obile
pho
ne-b
ased
mul
timed
ia m
essa
ges (
CBT-
base
d te
xts,
vid
eo m
essa
ges,
car
toon
s)N
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
of C
BT-b
ased
pro
gram
ove
r con
trol
. Bo
th p
rogr
ams d
emon
stra
ted
smal
l im
prov
emen
ts in
de
pres
sion
scor
e im
med
iate
ly a
fter t
he in
terv
entio
n fo
llow
ed b
y a
wor
seni
ng o
f sco
res a
t 12-
mon
th fo
llow
-up
.

105
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
25. R
apo
sa E
B, R
hod
es J
, Sta
ms
GJJ
M, C
ard
N, B
urto
n S
, Sch
war
tz S
, et
al. T
he E
ffec
ts o
f Yo
uth
Men
tori
ng P
rog
ram
s: A
Met
a-A
naly
sis
of
Out
com
e S
tud
ies.
Jo
urna
l of
Yout
h an
d A
do
lesc
ence
[I
nter
net]
. 201
9 Ja
n 19
[ci
ted
201
9 A
ug 2
0]; 4
8:42
3-44
3. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
link.
spri
nger
.co
m/a
rtic
le/1
0.10
07%
2Fs1
0964
-019
-009
82-8
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
You
th a
ges 9
-16
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 197
5-20
17#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 7
0As
not
ed b
y au
thor
: The
re w
as s
ubst
antia
l he
tero
gene
ity b
oth
acro
ss st
udie
s in
clud
ed in
this
set
of
ana
lyse
s, a
s w
ell a
s be
twee
n eff
ect s
izes
extr
acte
d fr
om th
e sa
me
stud
y. M
ultip
le m
oder
ator
s w
ere
test
ed to
att
empt
to a
ccou
nt fo
r thi
s he
tero
gene
ity
in th
e cu
rren
t sam
ple
of st
udie
s; h
owev
er, f
urth
er
rese
arch
is n
eede
d to
mor
e pr
ecis
ely
dete
rmin
e w
hich
pro
gram
pra
ctice
s ar
e m
ost e
ffecti
ve fo
r whi
ch
popu
latio
ns o
f men
tors
and
you
th, a
nd fo
r whi
ch
parti
cula
r you
th o
utco
mes
.Al
thou
gh th
e pr
esen
t ana
lyse
s sh
owed
no
evid
ence
of
pub
licati
on b
ias,
it is
impo
rtan
t to
ackn
owle
dge
that
stud
ies
that
do
not s
uppo
rt th
e eff
ectiv
enes
s of
m
ento
ring
prog
ram
s m
ight
be
less
like
ly to
app
ear
in p
eer-
revi
ewed
jour
nals
, dis
sert
ation
s, o
r res
earc
h re
port
s, th
ereb
y in
fluen
cing
inte
rpre
tatio
n of
resu
lts.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: y
outh
age
s 9-1
6 (m
ean
age
12)
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Psy
cIN
FO,
ERIC
, and
Pro
Que
st.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: A
naly
ses
of th
e da
ta fr
om 7
0 st
udie
s of
you
th m
ento
ring
prog
ram
s re
veal
ed th
at
the
mea
n eff
ect o
f men
torin
g on
you
th o
utco
mes
w
as g
=.21
. Alth
ough
this
effe
ct is
con
side
red
smal
l by
Cohe
n’s
guid
elin
es, i
t fal
ls w
ell w
ithin
the
med
ium
/mod
erat
e ra
nge
of e
mpi
rical
gui
delin
es
for t
he a
vera
ge e
ffect
size
s of
uni
vers
al y
outh
pr
even
tion
prog
ram
s (T
anne
r-Sm
ith e
t al.
2018
). At
the
sam
e tim
e, h
owev
er, m
any
yout
h w
ho
are
refe
rred
to m
ento
ring
prog
ram
s ar
e al
read
y ex
perie
ncin
g su
b-cl
inic
al le
vels
of d
ifficu
lties
an
d sy
mpt
oms,
and
thus
pre
sent
gre
ater
room
fo
r im
prov
emen
t on
outc
ome
asse
ssm
ents
than
yo
uth
in p
rimar
y pr
even
tion
prog
ram
s (J
arjo
ura
et
al. 2
018)
. As
such
, com
paris
ons
with
the
som
ewha
t la
rger
effe
cts
repo
rted
in in
dica
ted
(sec
onda
ry)
prev
entio
n pr
ogra
ms
may
als
o be
war
rant
ed
(Dur
lak
and
Wel
ls 1
998;
Tan
ner-
Smith
et a
l. 20
18).
The
effec
t size
obs
erve
d in
thes
e an
alys
es is
re
mar
kabl
y co
nsist
ent w
ith p
ast c
ompr
ehen
sive
m
eta-
anal
yses
of y
outh
men
torin
g, w
hich
hav
e sh
own
over
all e
ffect
size
s ra
ngin
g fr
om .1
8 to
.21
(DuB
ois
et a
l. 20
02; 2
011)
.It
is im
port
ant t
o no
te th
at e
ven
smal
l to
mod
erat
e im
prov
emen
ts in
asp
ects
of y
outh
func
tioni
ng li
ke
subs
tanc
e us
e, d
epre
ssiv
e sy
mpt
oms,
and
aca
dem
ic
enga
gem
ent c
an h
ave
an im
port
ant i
nflue
nce
on tr
ajec
torie
s of
pos
itive
you
th d
evel
opm
ent,
espe
cial
ly w
hen
thes
e im
prov
emen
ts o
ccur
dur
ing
criti
cal p
erio
ds o
f dev
elop
men
t (Ta
nner
-Sm
ith e
t al
. 201
8).
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Men
torin
g pr
ogra
m:
Inte
rgen
erati
onal
, one
-on-
one.
Men
torin
g is
defin
ed a
s a
non-
pare
ntal
adu
lt or
old
er y
outh
acti
ng in
a n
on-p
rofe
ssio
nal
help
ing
capa
city
with
a sp
ecifi
c yo
unge
r per
son
to p
rom
ote
positi
ve y
outh
out
com
es th
roug
h th
e re
latio
nshi
p.
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es m
ust 1
) inc
lude
a
form
al m
ento
ring
prog
ram
in li
ne w
ith th
e pr
ovid
ed d
efini
tion
for m
ento
ring,
2) i
nclu
de
an e
valu
ation
with
a c
ompa
rison
gro
up
(incl
udin
g RC
Ts a
nd/o
r qua
si-ex
perim
enta
l st
udie
s)
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
abo
ve)
No
signi
fican
t diff
eren
ce b
y ag
e of
men
tee.

106
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
(see
abo
ve)
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Stu
dies
that
invo
lved
m
ento
ring
prog
ram
s tha
t had
rela
tions
hips
th
at w
ere
mor
e pr
ofes
siona
l in
natu
re (e
.g.,
tuto
ring,
coa
chin
g) w
ere
excl
uded
from
th
e m
eta-
anal
ysis.
Stu
dies
wer
e ex
clud
ed
durin
g th
e se
cond
roun
d of
scre
enin
g if
they
1)
invo
lved
sim
ilar-a
ge p
eer m
ento
ring,
2)
incl
uded
onl
y gr
oup
men
torin
g, 3
) inv
olve
d ad
ult m
ente
es o
lder
than
18
year
s of a
ge,
4) h
ad in
suffi
cien
t tre
atm
ent v
ersu
s con
trol
gr
oup
diffe
renti
ation
, 5) u
tilize
d ad
junc
tive
men
torin
g (i.
e., e
valu
ation
s in
whi
ch
men
torin
g w
as n
ot o
ne o
f the
prim
ary
or se
cond
ary
com
pone
nts)
, 6) i
nvol
ved
outc
ome
that
faile
d to
fall
into
one
of t
he
follo
win
g br
oad
cate
gorie
s: p
sych
olog
ical
, so
cial
, sch
ool,
heal
th, o
r cog
nitiv
e, a
nd 7
) la
cked
suffi
cien
t inf
orm
ation
to c
ompu
te
an e
ffect
size
and
the
auth
or c
ould
not
be
reac
hed
to su
pply
the
data
or d
id
not r
espo
nd to
requ
ests
for a
dditi
onal
in
form
ation
with
in a
spec
ified
tim
efra
me.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Bro
adly
cod
ed in
to 5
cat
egor
ies:
Psy
chol
ogic
al,
Soci
al, C
ogni
tive,
Hea
lth, o
r Sch
ool
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: S
choo
l: Ac
adem
ic fu
nctio
ning
(e.g
., GP
A, g
radu
ation
rate
, ach
ieve
men
t te
st sc
ores
), ex
trac
urric
ular
eng
agem
ent (
e.g.
, inv
olve
men
t in
com
mun
ity se
rvic
e, sp
orts
acti
vitie
s); P
sych
olog
ical
: ex
tern
aliz
ing
sym
ptom
s (e.
g., a
ggre
ssio
n, d
elin
quen
cy,
bully
ing)
, int
erna
lizin
g sy
mpt
oms (
e.g.
, dep
ress
ion,
anx
iety
), se
lf-re
gula
tion
prob
lem
s (e.
g., a
tten
tiona
l diffi
culti
es,
hype
racti
vity
, sel
f-con
trol
pro
blem
s), o
ther
men
tal h
ealth
(e
.g.,
use
of p
sych
olog
ical
serv
ices
or m
edic
ation
); He
alth
: su
bsta
nce
use,
phy
sical
hea
lth (e
.g.,
exer
cise
, eati
ng
beha
vior
, sex
ual b
ehav
ior)
, wel
l-bei
ng (e
.g.,
qual
ity o
f life
, life
sa
tisfa
ction
); Co
gniti
on: E
xecu
tive
func
tioni
ng (e
.g.,
plan
ning
an
d pr
ioriti
zing,
goa
l orie
ntati
on, w
orki
ng m
emor
y), s
elf-
cogn
ition
(e.g
., pe
rcei
ved
self-
effica
cy, g
row
th m
inds
et, g
rit);
Scho
ol: s
choo
l eng
agem
ent (
e.g.
, sch
ool c
onne
cted
ness
, att
enda
nce,
scho
ol li
king
); So
cial
: soc
ial s
kills
(e.g
., co
oper
ation
, em
path
y, tu
rn-ta
king
), pe
rcei
ved
soci
al su
ppor
t, re
latio
nshi
p qu
ality
(e.g
., pe
rcep
tions
of r
elati
onsh
ip q
ualit
y w
ith te
ache
rs, p
aren
ts, p
eers
)
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18-
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
Setti
ng(s
): co
mm
unity
and
scho
olCo
untr
y(ie
s): U
.S.
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
scho
ol, c
omm
unity

107
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
26. R
od
rig
uez-
Ayl
lon
M, C
aden
as-S
anch
ez C
, Est
evez
-Lo
pez
F, M
uno
z N
E, M
ora
-Go
nzal
ez J
, Mig
uele
s JH
, et
al. R
ole
of
Phy
sica
l Act
ivit
y an
d S
eden
tary
Beh
avio
r in
the
Men
tal H
ealt
h o
f P
resc
hoo
lers
, Chi
ldre
n, a
nd A
do
lesc
ents
: A S
yste
mat
ic R
evie
w a
nd M
eta-
Ana
lysi
s. S
po
rts
Med
icin
e [I
nter
net]
. 201
9 A
pr
16 [
cite
d 2
019
July
26]
; (E
pub
ahe
ad o
f p
rint
). A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
ww
w.
ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/3
0993
59FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
pre
scho
oler
s (2-
5 ye
ars o
f age
), ch
ildre
n (6
-11
year
s of a
ge),
and
adol
esce
nts
(12-
18 y
ears
of a
ge).
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: Jan
201
3 –
Apr 2
018
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
114
(12
in m
eta-
anal
ysis)
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: A
dole
scen
ts a
ged
12-1
8 ye
ars
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: S
mal
l pos
itive
effe
ct o
f ex
erci
se in
terv
entio
ns o
n m
enta
l hea
lth o
utco
me
in a
dole
scen
ts, p
hysic
al a
ctivi
ty w
as in
vers
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith p
sych
olog
ical
ill-b
eing
and
pos
itive
ly
asso
ciat
ed w
ith p
sych
olog
ical
wel
l-bei
ng, a
nd th
ere
was
pos
itive
ass
ocia
tion
betw
een
sede
ntar
y be
havi
or
and
depr
essio
n an
d an
inve
rse
asso
ciati
on b
etw
een
sede
ntar
y be
havi
or a
nd sa
tisfa
ction
with
life
and
ha
ppin
ess i
n ch
ildre
n an
d ad
oles
cent
s.
As n
oted
by
auth
or: e
xpan
ding
sear
ch to
mor
e da
taba
ses
may
hav
e pr
oduc
ed m
ore
data
for t
he a
naly
sis. B
ecau
se
of th
e he
tero
gene
ity o
f the
out
com
e m
easu
res,
it
was
not
pos
sible
to c
ondu
ct a
met
a-an
alys
is of
the
pros
pecti
ve lo
ngitu
dina
l stu
dies
.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Phy
sical
acti
vity
and
se
dent
ary
beha
vior
inte
rven
tions
. Da
taba
ses s
earc
hed
for r
evie
w: P
ubM
ed,
Web
of S
cien
ceAd
oles
cent
-Spe
cific
Fin
ding
s: (s
ee ta
ble)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
Yoga
(Tel
les e
t al.,
201
3; D
as e
t al.,
20
16; C
ox e
t al.,
201
7), a
erob
ic e
xerc
ise (H
asan
pour
et a
l.,
2014
; Pen
g et
al.,
201
5), a
erob
ic e
xerc
ise, r
esist
ance
exe
rcise
, or
com
bine
d ex
erci
se (G
oldfi
eld
et a
l., 2
015)
, hig
h-in
tens
ity
inte
rval
trai
ning
(Cos
tigan
et a
l., 2
016)
, Che
n-st
yle
Tai C
hi (L
ee
et a
l., 2
013)
, acti
ve v
ideo
-gam
e pr
ogra
m (S
taia
no e
t al.,
201
3),
Tai C
hi (B
ao e
t al.,
201
5), C
ross
Fit (
Eath
er e
t al.,
201
6).
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es m
ust b
e in
terv
entio
n st
udie
s (RC
Ts a
nd n
on-R
CTs)
and
pro
spec
tive
long
itudi
nal a
nd c
ross
-sec
tiona
l stu
dies
fo
cuse
d on
phy
sical
acti
vity
, sed
enta
ry
beha
vior
and
men
tal h
ealth
; mus
t be
publ
ished
in e
ither
Eng
lish
or S
pani
sh; s
tudy
m
ust i
nclu
de e
ither
pre
scho
oler
s, c
hild
ren,
an
d/or
ado
lesc
ents
; and
mus
t add
ress
the
asso
ciati
on b
etw
een
phys
ical
acti
vity
and
/or
sede
ntar
y be
havi
or a
nd a
t lea
st o
ne
psyc
holo
gica
l ill-
bein
g m
easu
re a
nd/o
r ps
ycho
logi
cal w
ell-b
eing
mea
sure
.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: M
easu
res o
f psy
chol
ogic
al w
ell-b
eing
(e.g
., se
lf-es
teem
, se
lf-im
age,
hap
pine
ss, p
ositi
ve a
ffect
) and
mea
sure
s of
psyc
holo
gica
l ill-
bein
g (e
.g.,
depr
essio
n sy
mpt
oms,
stre
ss,
anxi
ety
sym
ptom
s),
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Gre
y lit
erat
ure
and
conf
eren
ce p
roce
edin
gs w
ere
not i
nclu
ded.
St
udie
s inc
ludi
ng in
divi
dual
s with
phy
sical
or
psy
chol
ogic
al d
isord
ers d
iagn
osed
by
med
ical
reco
rds w
ere
excl
uded
. Stu
dies
in
volv
ing
elite
ath
lete
s, a
s wel
l as t
hose
in
volv
ing
anim
als w
ere
excl
uded
. Mul
tiple
he
alth
beh
avio
r int
erve
ntion
s wer
e al
so
excl
uded
.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: B
attle
’s Se
lf-Es
teem
Inve
ntor
y (T
elle
s et a
l., 2
013)
, Coo
pers
mith
Sel
f-Es
teem
Inve
ntor
y (H
asan
pour
et a
l., 2
014)
, Bru
nel M
ood
Scal
e,
Mul
tiple
Bod
y Se
lf-Re
latio
ns Q
uesti
onna
ire, P
hysic
al S
elf-
Perc
eptio
ns Q
uesti
onna
ire (G
oldfi
eld
et a
l., 2
015)
, Flo
urish
ing,
Ke
ssle
r Psy
chol
ogic
al D
istre
ss, P
hysic
al S
elf-D
escr
iptio
n, O
ne-
item
Fee
lings
Sta
te (C
ostig
an e
t al.,
201
6), P
erce
ived
Str
ess
Scal
e (L
ee e
t al.,
201
3), R
osen
berg
Sel
f-Est
eem
Sca
le (S
taia
no
et a
l., 2
013)
, “I a
m”
stat
emen
t que
stion
naire
(Bao
et a
l., 2
015)
, M
enta
l Hea
lth S
cale
by
Wan
g (P
eng
et a
l., 2
015)
, Sel
f-Effi
cacy
Sc
ale
for C
hild
ren
(Das
et a
l., 2
016)
, Str
engt
h an
d Di
fficu
lties
Q
uesti
onna
ire, P
hysic
al S
elf-D
escr
iptio
n Q
uesti
onna
ire (E
athe
r et
al.,
201
6), O
bjec
tified
Bod
y Co
nsci
ousn
ess S
cale
, Phy
sical
Se
lf-De
scrip
tion
Que
stion
naire
, The
Bod
y Ap
prec
iatio
n Sc
ale
(Cox
et a
l., 2
017)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A

108
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Setti
ng(s
): no
t rep
orte
dCo
untr
y(ie
s): M
ostly
OEC
D co
untr
ies,
but
Indi
a, Ir
an,C
hina
, Ko
rea,
wer
e al
so si
tes f
or st
udie
s.
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Indi
vidu
al
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Telle
s et a
l., 2
013
8-13
yea
rsYo
ga v
s phy
sical
exe
rcise
s (45
min
utes
5 d
ays a
wee
k)Th
ere
was
onl
y on
e sig
nific
ant d
iffer
ence
bet
wee
n th
e gr
oups
in so
cial
self-
este
em th
at w
as h
ighe
r in
the
exer
cise
gro
up, a
ll ot
her d
iffer
ence
s wer
e no
t sig
nific
ant.
Hasa
npou
r et a
l., 2
014
13-1
9 ye
ars
60-8
0% m
ax h
eart
rate
acti
vity
vs c
ontr
ol 6
0 m
inut
es
3 da
ys a
wee
kA
signi
fican
t diff
eren
ce b
etw
een
grou
ps w
as o
btai
ned
in p
ost s
elf-e
stee
m sc
ores
(p=0
.001
). O
ne m
onth
afte
r in
terv
entio
n, re
sults
show
ed th
at d
espi
te th
e am
ount
of
tim
e el
apse
d, th
e eff
ects
of a
erob
ic e
xerc
ise sti
ll pe
rsist
ed (p
=0.0
02)
100%
fem
ale
sam
ple.
Gold
field
et a
l., 2
015
14-1
8 ye
ars
Aero
bic
exer
cise
vs c
ontr
ol, r
esist
ance
exe
rcise
vs
cont
rol,
com
bine
d ex
erci
se v
s con
trol
(45
min
utes
3
days
a w
eek)
All g
roup
s (in
clud
ing
cont
rol)
impr
oved
on
body
imag
e.
Onl
y th
e re
sista
nce
grou
p sh
owed
a si
gnifi
cant
redu
ction
in
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s (p=
0.02
). Th
e re
sista
nce
grou
p sh
owed
gre
ater
incr
ease
s tha
n co
ntro
l on
glob
al se
lf-es
teem
but
all
grou
ps (e
xclu
ding
the
cont
rol g
roup
) im
prov
ed o
n vi
gor a
nd g
loba
l sel
f-est
eem
.
Costi
gan
et a
l., 2
016
14-1
6 ye
ars
High
-inte
nsity
inte
rval
trai
ning
with
aer
obic
vs
cont
rol a
nd c
ombi
ned
vs c
ontr
ol (8
-10
min
utes
3
days
a w
eek)
Resu
lts w
ere
not s
igni
fican
t but
a sm
all i
mpr
ovem
ent
in p
sych
olog
ical
wel
l-bei
ng w
as o
bser
ved
in th
e ae
robi
c ex
erci
se g
roup
. Sm
all i
mpr
ovem
ents
in p
sych
olog
ical
w
ell-b
eing
and
per
ceiv
ed a
ppea
ranc
e w
ere
obse
rved
in
the
com
bine
d gr
oup.
Fee
lings
impr
oved
in b
oth
grou
ps
but w
ere
signi
fican
t onl
y in
the
aero
bic
grou
p (p
=0.0
01).
Lee
et a
l., 2
013
11-1
6 ye
ars
Chen
-sty
le T
ai C
hi v
s con
trol
(80
min
utes
1 d
ay a
w
eek)
No
signi
fican
t diff
eren
ce w
as n
oted
in c
hang
es in
stre
ss
leve
ls be
fore
and
afte
r the
inte
rven
tion
betw
een
the
two
grou
ps.
Stai
ano
et a
l., 2
013
15-1
9 ye
ars
Activ
e vi
deo-
gam
e pr
ogra
m (c
ompe
titive
vs c
ontr
ol
and
coop
erati
ve v
s con
trol
) 30-
60 m
inut
es 3
day
s a
wee
k
The
grow
th c
urve
ana
lysis
of s
elf-e
stee
m c
hang
e yi
elde
d no
con
ditio
n eff
ects
. The
re w
ere
no si
gnifi
cant
cha
nges
in
self-
este
em in
any
gro
up.
Bao
et a
l., 2
015
13-1
6 ye
ars
Tai C
hi v
s gym
nasti
cs 6
0 m
inut
es 5
day
s a w
eek
Sign
ifica
nt re
ducti
on o
f anx
iety
in th
e ex
perim
enta
l gr
oup
com
pare
d w
ith th
e co
ntro
l gro
up w
as o
bser
ved.
N
o sig
nific
ant d
iffer
ence
s, in
rela
tion
to p
hysic
al
appe
aran
ce a
nd h
appi
ness
, bet
wee
n th
e Ta
i Chi
and
co
ntro
l gro
ups w
ere
foun
d.
Peng
et a
l., 2
015
14-1
9 ye
ars
Exer
cise
vs c
ontr
ol (5
0-80
% m
ax h
eart
rate
) 80
min
utes
2 d
ays a
wee
kTh
e in
terv
entio
n gr
oup
was
supe
rior t
o th
e co
ntro
l gr
oup
in te
rms o
f anx
iety
, dep
ress
ion,
em
otion
al
imba
lanc
e, a
nd p
sych
olog
ical
bal
ance
. The
diff
eren
ce
was
stati
stica
lly si
gnifi
cant
(p<0
.05)
.
Das e
t al.,
201
611
-16
year
sYo
ga v
s con
trol
60-
120
min
utes
eve
ry w
eekd
ayYo
ga g
roup
show
ed a
sign
ifica
nt in
crea
se in
aca
dem
ic
self-
effica
cy (p
<0.0
01),
soci
al se
lf-effi
cacy
(p<0
.001
), an
d em
otion
al se
lf-effi
cacy
(p<0
.001
), w
here
as th
ere
was
no
signi
fican
t cha
nges
in th
e sc
ores
of t
he c
ontr
ol g
roup
.
Eath
er e
t al.,
201
615
.4 y
ears
Cros
sFit
vs c
ontr
ol 6
0 m
inut
es 2
day
s a w
eek
Ther
e w
ere
no si
gnifi
cant
inte
rven
tion
effec
ts o
n m
enta
l he
alth
or p
oten
tial m
edia
tors
in th
e fu
ll st
udy
sam
ple.
In
terv
entio
n pa
rtici
pant
s cat
egor
ized
as ‘a
t risk
’ of
inte
rnal
izing
pro
blem
s dem
onst
rate
d im
prov
emen
ts in
se
lf-es
teem
, per
ceiv
ed b
ody
fat,
perc
eive
d ap
pear
ance
, ph
ysic
al se
lf-co
ncep
t, an
d to
tal d
ifficu
lties
scor
e. A
m
ediu
m-la
rge
positi
ve e
ffect
on
perc
eive
d bo
dy fa
t was
al
so o
bser
ved
in b
oys.
Cox
et a
l., 2
017
13-1
7 ye
ars
Yoga
vs c
ontr
ol 6
0 m
inut
es 2
day
s a w
eek
Resu
lts sh
owed
sign
ifica
nt (p
=0.0
04),
mod
erat
e de
crea
ses i
n tr
ait b
ody
surv
eilla
nce
and
min
imal
, non
-sig
nific
ant i
ncre
ases
in p
hysic
al se
lf-w
orth
. Cha
nge
in
trai
t bod
y su
rvei
llanc
e w
as in
vers
ely
rela
ted
to c
hang
e in
phy
sical
self-
wor
th a
nd b
ody
appr
ecia
tion
in y
oga
parti
cipa
nts.

109
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
27. S
aler
no J
P. E
ffec
tive
ness
of
Uni
vers
al S
cho
ol-
Bas
ed M
enta
l Hea
lth
Aw
aren
ess
Pro
gra
ms
Am
ong
Yo
uth
in t
he U
nite
d S
tate
s: A
Sys
tem
atic
Rev
iew
. Jo
urna
l of
Sch
oo
l Hea
lth
[Int
erne
t]. 2
016
Dec
[c
ited
201
9 Ju
ly 2
6]; 8
6(12
):922
-931
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/2
7866
385
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
Sc
hool
chi
ldre
n in
gra
des 5
to 1
2 Da
te ra
nge
for r
evie
w: 1
988-
2016
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
15
As n
oted
by
auth
or: O
nly
a sin
gle
indi
vidu
al c
ondu
cted
th
e sy
stem
atic
liter
atur
e se
arch
. M
any
stud
ies c
ondu
cted
in sc
hool
s are
usin
g st
udy
desig
ns th
at la
ck st
reng
th in
est
ablis
hing
true
cau
se-
effec
t rel
ation
ship
s.Fo
r exa
mpl
e:O
nly
3 st
udie
s use
d ra
ndom
ized
cont
rolle
d or
Sol
omon
4-
grou
ps st
udy
desig
ns.
Expe
rimen
tal s
tudi
es su
ffere
d fr
om la
ck o
f tru
e ra
ndom
as
signm
ent;
Case
-ser
ies d
esig
n st
udie
s: h
igh
risk
of b
ias;
In m
any
inst
ance
s, in
form
ation
to a
sses
s risk
of b
ias w
as
miss
ing.
Stigm
a is
the
attitu
de m
ost l
inke
d to
poo
r men
tal h
ealth
ou
tcom
es, b
ut o
nly
5 of
11
men
tal h
ealth
atti
tude
st
udie
s add
ress
ed sti
gma.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up:
All i
nter
venti
ons i
nvol
ved
stud
ents
from
gra
des 5
to 1
2.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Psy
cIN
FO,
Coch
rane
Lib
rary
, Pub
Med
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s:
Ove
rall,
uni
vers
al sc
hool
-bas
ed m
enta
l hea
lth
awar
enes
s pro
gram
s app
ear p
rom
ising
but
mor
e re
sear
ch is
nee
ded.
12
stud
ies m
easu
red
stud
ents
’ kno
wle
dge
of m
enta
l he
alth
and
all
foun
d im
prov
emen
t in
know
ledg
e at
po
st-te
st b
ut n
ot a
ll fo
und
stati
stica
l sig
nific
ance
; ni
ne o
ut o
f 11
stud
ies a
sses
sing
attitu
des f
ound
im
prov
emen
ts w
ith 6
find
ing
stati
stica
lly si
gnifi
cant
im
prov
emen
ts, 5
out
of 7
stud
ies a
sses
sing
help
-se
ekin
g fo
und
impr
ovem
ent t
houg
h 2
did
not fi
nd
signi
fican
t effe
cts.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Uni
vers
al, s
choo
l-bas
ed m
enta
l hea
lth a
war
enes
s pro
gram
s of
vario
us fo
rms (
prim
arily
inst
ruct
or-le
d tr
aditi
onal
edu
catio
n cu
rric
ulum
led
by a
facu
lty a
dvise
r, co
unse
lor,
teac
her,
nurs
e,
rese
arch
er, e
tc.)
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Stu
dies
mus
t be
con
duct
ed w
ithin
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es in
a
scho
ol se
tting
. Stu
dy p
artic
ipan
ts m
ust b
e st
uden
ts e
nrol
led
in a
K-1
2 sc
hool
. Stu
dy
mus
t be
univ
ersa
l in
natu
re.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
abo
ve)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
Focu
s are
as o
f pro
gram
s inc
lude
d: g
ener
al m
enta
l hea
lth,
suic
ide,
vio
lenc
e
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PS
EWB
outc
omes
: Cha
nge
in k
now
ledg
e, a
ttitu
des,
and
/or
help
-see
king
(will
ingn
ess,
inte
ntion
s, a
ttitu
des,
like
lihoo
d,
beha
vior
s, a
nd k
now
ledg
e).
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—St
udie
s tha
t ta
rget
ed st
uden
ts d
iagn
osed
with
men
tal
illne
sses
wer
e no
t inc
lude
d. N
on-r
esea
rch
or g
rey
liter
atur
e ar
ticle
s wer
e no
t inc
lude
d.
Inte
rven
tions
that
incl
uded
par
ents
bey
ond
obta
inin
g st
uden
t con
sent
wer
e ex
clud
ed.
No
rest
rictio
ns o
n st
udy
desig
n.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: (
see
abov
e)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A; JB
I Des
crip
tive
Case
-ser
ies;
Ran
dom
ized
Cont
rol P
seud
o-ra
ndom
ized
Tria
l Criti
cal A
ppra
isal T
ools
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
env
ironm
ents
Coun
try(
ies)
: U.S
.St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s): n
ot
repo
rted
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, sc
hool
, fa
mily
, wor
k, re
crea
tion,
OST
): Sc
hool

110
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
28. S
keen
S, L
aure
nzi C
A, G
ord
on
SL,
du
Toit
S, T
om
linso
n M
, Dua
T, e
t al
. Ad
ole
scen
t M
enta
l Hea
lth
Pro
gra
m C
om
po
nent
s an
d B
ehav
ior
Ris
k R
educ
tio
n: A
Met
a-an
alys
is. P
edia
tric
s [I
nter
net]
. 20
19 J
ul 1
[ci
ted
201
9 Ju
ly 2
6]; (
Ep
ub a
head
of
pri
nt).
Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/3
1262
779
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
ado
lesc
ents
age
d 10
to 1
9.
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 200
0-20
18#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 1
58As
not
ed b
y au
thor
: Mos
t inc
lude
d st
udie
s wer
e fr
om
high
-inco
me
setti
ngs,
lim
iting
the
appl
icab
ility
of t
he
findi
ngs t
o lo
w- a
nd m
iddl
e-in
com
e co
untr
ies.
Sam
ples
on
ly in
clud
ed tr
ials.
Very
goo
d re
view
to
use
as a
fram
ewor
k fo
r de
velo
ping
an
adol
esce
nt
wel
lbei
ng p
rogr
am!
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: A
ll in
terv
entio
ns in
clud
ed
adol
esce
nts a
ged
10-1
9
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: U
nive
rsal
ly d
eliv
ered
inte
rven
tions
ca
n im
prov
e ad
oles
cent
men
tal h
ealth
and
re
duce
risk
beh
avio
r. 7
inte
rven
tion
com
pone
nts
pred
icte
d on
ly p
ositi
ve e
ffect
s (in
terp
erso
nal s
kills
, em
otion
al re
gula
tion,
alc
ohol
and
dru
g ed
ucati
on,
min
dful
ness
, pro
blem
solv
ing,
ass
ertiv
e tr
aini
ng,
stre
ss m
anag
emen
t). O
f thi
s 7, 3
com
pone
nts
pred
icte
d po
sitive
effe
cts a
cros
s mul
tiple
out
com
es
(inte
rper
sona
l ski
lls tr
aini
ng, e
moti
onal
regu
latio
n,
alco
hol a
nd d
rug
educ
ation
). 6
prac
tice
com
pone
nts
wer
e as
soci
ated
with
mix
ed re
sults
(con
flict
re
solu
tion,
cop
ing
skill
s, g
oal s
etting
, rel
axati
on, s
kills
to
resis
t pee
r pre
ssur
e, se
lf-effi
cacy
).
Purp
ose
of re
view
:““
Help
ing
Adol
esce
nts
Thriv
e” is
a W
orld
Hea
lth
Org
aniza
tion
and
Uni
ted
Nati
ons C
hild
ren’
s Fun
d in
itiati
ve u
sed
to d
evel
op a
pa
ckag
e of
evi
denc
e-ba
sed
psyc
holo
gica
l int
erve
ntion
s to
pro
mot
e ad
oles
cent
m
enta
l hea
lth a
nd p
reve
nt
men
tal d
isord
ers a
nd
risk
beha
vior
s am
ong
adol
esce
nts.
As a
par
t of
this
proj
ect,
we
cond
ucte
d a
syst
emati
c re
view
, met
a-an
alys
is, a
nd p
rogr
am
com
pone
nts a
naly
sis
of u
nive
rsal
ly d
eliv
ered
in
terv
entio
ns th
at so
ught
th
ese
aim
s. O
ur p
urpo
se o
f th
is re
view
was
to in
form
th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
he
inte
rven
tion
pack
age.
Sp
ecifi
cally
, we
wan
ted
to
iden
tify
cont
ent-r
elat
ed
feat
ures
of p
rogr
ams
(kno
wn
as p
rogr
am o
r pr
actic
e co
mpo
nent
s)
that
con
siste
ntly
pre
dict
la
rger
effe
ct si
zes i
n th
ese
prog
ram
s acr
oss a
rang
e of
ou
tcom
es.”
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Ps
ycho
soci
al in
terv
entio
ns (m
ix o
f fac
e-to
-face
and
dig
ital
deliv
ery
met
hods
) inc
ludi
ng c
ompo
nent
s of:
activ
ity
mon
itorin
g an
d sc
hedu
ling,
alc
ohol
and
/or d
rug
educ
ation
, an
ger m
anag
emen
t, as
serti
vene
ss, b
ehav
iora
l acti
vatio
n,
civi
c an
d/or
soci
al re
spon
sibili
ty, c
ogni
tive
rest
rictin
g,
com
mun
icati
on sk
ills,
con
flict
reso
lutio
n, c
opin
g sk
ills,
dec
ision
m
akin
g, e
moti
onal
regu
latio
n, g
oal s
etting
, ins
ight
bui
ldin
g,
inte
rper
sona
l rel
ation
ship
s and
/or s
kills
, men
tal h
ealth
lite
racy
, m
indf
ulne
ss, p
robl
em so
lvin
g, re
laxa
tion,
resis
ting
drug
/al
coho
l-rel
ated
pee
r pre
ssur
e, se
lf-effi
cacy
, sel
f-mon
itorin
g,
soci
al sk
ills,
stre
ss m
anag
emen
t, su
ppor
t net
wor
king
.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Pub
Med
, M
EDLI
NE,
Psy
cIN
FO, S
COPU
S, E
mba
se,
Appl
ied
soci
al S
cien
ces I
ndex
Abs
trac
ts
H.S.
age
d Ad
oles
cent
-Spe
cific
Fin
ding
s: (s
ee a
bove
)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
(see
abo
ve)
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es in
clud
ed m
ust 1
) be
RCTs
of p
sych
osoc
ial i
nter
venti
ons 2
) inc
lude
ad
oles
cent
s par
ticip
ants
bet
wee
n 10
and
19
yea
rs o
f age
3) i
nclu
de tr
ial i
nter
venti
ons
with
the
prim
ary
or se
cond
ary
aim
s of
prom
oting
men
tal h
ealth
or p
reve
nting
m
enta
l diso
rder
s, re
duci
ng ri
sk b
ehav
iors
, or
redu
cing
self-
harm
and
suic
ide
4) b
e un
iver
sal i
n its
app
licati
on.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PS
EWB
outc
omes
: Pos
itive
men
tal h
ealth
(men
tal w
ell-b
eing
, re
silie
nce,
cop
ing,
em
otion
al re
gula
tion)
; dep
ress
ive
and
anxi
ous s
ympt
omat
olog
y; v
iole
nce
perp
etra
tion,
agg
ress
ion,
an
d bu
llyin
g; a
nd a
lcoh
ol a
nd o
ther
subs
tanc
e us
e.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: stu
dies
wer
e ex
clud
ed if
they
fa
iled
to m
eet t
he in
clus
ion
crite
ria d
etai
led
abov
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: (
see
abov
e)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): GR
ADE

111
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): m
ultip
le, i
nclu
ding
dig
ital/o
nlin
eCo
untr
y(ie
s): h
igh-
inco
me
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
: not
re
port
edLe
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Scho
ol, I
nter
pers
onal
, In
divi
dual

112
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
29. S
oul
ako
va B
, Kas
al A
, But
zer
B, W
inkl
er P
. Met
a-R
evie
w o
n th
e E
ffec
tive
ness
of
Cla
ssro
om
-Bas
ed P
sych
olo
gic
al In
terv
enti
ons
Aim
ed a
t Im
pro
ving
Stu
den
t M
enta
l Hea
lth
and
Wel
l-B
eing
, and
Pre
vent
ing
Men
tal I
llnes
s. T
he J
our
nal o
f P
rim
ary
Pre
vent
ion
[Int
erne
t]. 2
019
May
28
[cit
ed 2
019
Aug
6];
40(
3):2
55-2
78. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
link.
spri
nger
.co
m/a
rtic
le/1
0.10
07%
2Fs
1093
5-01
9-00
552-
5FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
not
defi
ned
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 201
1 - 2
016
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded:
10
As n
oted
by
auth
or: D
ue to
larg
e he
tero
gene
ity o
f the
ou
tcom
es m
easu
red,
a m
eta-
anal
ytic
eval
uatio
n w
as n
ot
poss
ible
and
thus
onl
y a
narr
ative
synt
hesis
was
don
e.
Ages
wer
e no
t pro
vide
d w
ith th
e in
clud
ed st
udie
s.
Stud
ies t
hat c
lear
ly
iden
tified
an
adol
esce
nt
popu
latio
n an
d ad
oles
cent
fin
ding
s wer
e in
clud
ed in
th
e Te
en S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs
tabl
e bu
t the
re m
ay
be m
ore
that
wer
e no
t id
entifi
able
.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: 1
2-18
yea
rs o
ld (Y
ager
et
al.,
2013
), Gr
ades
1 th
roug
h 12
(Zen
ner e
t al.,
201
4), S
tude
nts
aged
8 to
15
year
s old
(Mag
gin
& Jo
hnso
n, 2
014)
.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: O
vera
ll eff
ectiv
enes
s rep
orte
d in
the
incl
uded
stud
ies w
as si
gnifi
cant
for t
he m
ost
part
. Effe
ct si
zes r
ange
d fr
om sm
all t
o la
rge.
The
au
thor
s of a
ll of
the
stud
ies e
mph
asize
d th
e ne
ed
for a
dditi
onal
hig
h-qu
ality
tria
ls to
furt
her e
xam
ine
the
effec
tiven
ess o
f sch
ool-b
ased
psy
chol
ogic
al
inte
rven
tions
aim
ed a
t im
prov
ing
stud
ent m
enta
l he
alth
and
wel
l-bei
ng, a
nd p
reve
nting
men
tal
illne
ss.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Min
dful
ness
, Soc
ial
Emoti
onal
Lea
rnin
g, C
ogni
tive
Beha
vior
The
rapy
, Yog
a, a
nd
Body
-Imag
e in
terv
entio
ns.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Psy
cIN
FO,
Web
of K
now
ledg
e, M
EDLI
NE,
EM
BASE
, He
alth
Man
agem
ent I
nfor
mati
on C
onso
rtium
.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
Body
imag
e in
terv
entio
ns (Y
ager
et a
l.,
2013
), M
indf
ulne
ss-B
ased
Inte
rven
tion
(sch
ool s
etting
) (Ze
nner
et
al.,
201
4), F
RIEN
DS p
rogr
am (M
aggi
n &
John
son,
201
4)
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: S
tudi
es h
ad to
be
eith
er
met
a-an
alys
es o
r sys
tem
atic
revi
ews f
ocus
ed
on in
terv
entio
ns in
scho
ol c
lass
room
s tha
t ta
rget
ed n
on-c
linic
al p
opul
ation
s. W
hen
a m
eta-
anal
ysis
or sy
stem
atic
revi
ew a
lso
inve
stiga
ted
non-
clas
sroo
m-b
ased
stud
ies,
at
leas
t hal
f of t
he st
udie
s rev
iew
ed h
ad
to b
e co
nduc
ted
in c
lass
room
s. T
he sa
me
crite
ria w
ere
used
for s
tudi
es th
at in
clud
ed
clin
ical
and
non
clin
ical
pop
ulati
ons.
Sec
ond,
st
rate
gies
disc
usse
d in
eac
h ar
ticle
had
to b
e cl
assr
oom
-bas
ed p
sych
olog
ical
inte
rven
tions
ai
med
at i
mpr
ovin
g st
uden
t men
tal h
ealth
an
d w
ell-b
eing
, and
pre
venti
ng m
enta
l illn
ess.
Th
ird, s
tudi
es w
ere
only
incl
uded
if th
ey w
ere
rate
d as
hav
ing
high
met
hodo
logi
cal q
ualit
y ac
cord
ing
to A
MST
AR g
uide
lines
.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: no
expl
icit
outc
omes
of i
nter
est i
denti
fied
for t
he
revi
ew.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Stu
dies
wer
e ex
clud
ed if
they
fo
cuse
d on
clie
nt th
erap
y w
ork
or in
divi
dual
co
unse
ling
or m
ento
ring
with
chi
ldre
n. In
ad
ditio
n, st
udie
s tha
t rep
orte
d en
viro
nmen
tal
or p
hysic
al in
fluen
ces o
n m
enta
l hea
lth,
such
as d
iet,
obes
ity p
reve
ntion
, or e
xerc
ise
inte
rven
tions
. Edu
catio
nal i
nter
venti
ons
that
focu
sed
sole
ly o
n pr
ovid
ing
theo
retic
al
desc
riptio
ns a
nd e
xpla
natio
ns o
f men
tal
illne
sses
or s
uici
de w
ere
also
exc
lude
d.
Revi
ews f
ocus
ed o
n st
udie
s inv
estig
ating
in
terv
entio
ns fo
r pre
venti
ng b
ully
ing
in
scho
ols o
r foc
used
exc
lusiv
ely
on c
linic
al
popu
latio
ns w
ere
excl
uded
.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: b
ody
imag
e, a
ttitu
des t
owar
ds e
ating
, hea
lthy
eatin
g be
havi
ors,
dr
ive
for t
hinn
ess (
Yage
r et a
l., 2
013)
, cog
nitiv
e pe
rfor
man
ce,
resi
lienc
e, st
ress
, em
otion
al p
robl
ems,
third
-par
ty ra
tings
(i.
e., t
each
er o
r par
ent r
ating
s) (Z
enne
r et a
l., 2
014)
, lev
els o
f an
xiet
y (M
aggi
n &
John
son,
201
4).
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A St
atem
ent,
PICO
; AM
STAR
for m
etho
dolo
gica
l qua
lity

113
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
sCo
untr
y(ie
s): n
ot re
port
ed
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
:Le
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Scho
ol, I
ndiv
idua
l
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Yage
r et a
l., 2
013
12-1
8 ye
ars o
ldBo
dy im
age
inte
rven
tions
7 of
the
16 p
rogr
ams w
ere
effec
tive
in im
prov
ing
body
im
age
on a
t lea
st o
ne m
easu
re fr
om p
re- t
o po
st-te
st
(alth
ough
effe
ct si
zes w
ere
smal
l; d=
0.2
2-0.
48).
All o
f th
e eff
ectiv
e in
terv
entio
ns w
ere
cond
ucte
d w
ith y
oung
er
adol
esce
nts a
ged
12 to
13.
5. N
one
of th
e in
terv
entio
ns
targ
eting
ado
lesc
ents
age
d 14
to 1
6 w
ere
foun
d to
be
effec
tive.
How
ever
, som
e in
terv
entio
ns w
ere
foun
d to
be
effe
ctive
in th
is ol
der a
ge g
roup
with
rega
rd to
oth
er
outc
omes
, suc
h as
redu
cing
the
driv
e fo
r thi
nnes
s and
pr
omoti
ng h
ealth
y atti
tude
s tow
ard
eatin
g an
d he
alth
y ea
ting
beha
vior
s. L
ess t
han
20%
of a
ll pr
ogra
ms h
ad
sust
aine
d eff
ects
on
body
imag
e at
follo
w-u
p.
Zenn
er e
t al.,
201
4Gr
ades
1 th
roug
h 12
M
indf
ulne
ss-B
ased
Inte
rven
tions
(sch
ool s
etting
s)24
stud
ies r
epor
ted
a sig
nific
ant m
ediu
m e
ffect
size
(ES)
of
g=0
.40
acro
ss a
ll co
ntro
lled
stud
ies a
nd d
omai
ns.
Rem
arka
bly,
the
ES o
f stu
dies
usin
g pr
e-po
st d
esig
ns o
nly
is ve
ry si
mila
r, w
ith g
=0.4
1. T
he e
ffect
s are
stro
nges
t in
the
dom
ain
of c
ogni
tive
perf
orm
ance
with
a la
rge
and
signi
fican
t ES
of g
=0.8
0 fo
r con
trol
led
stud
ies.
Effe
ct
sizes
are
smal
ler b
ut sti
ll sig
nific
ant i
n th
e do
mai
ns
of re
silie
nce
mea
sure
s (g=
0.36
) and
stre
ss m
easu
res
(g=0
.39)
. Non
-sig
nific
ant E
S fo
r mea
sure
s of e
moti
onal
pr
oble
ms (
g=0.
19) a
nd th
ird-p
erso
n ra
tings
(g=0
.25)
.
Mag
gin
& Jo
hnso
n, 2
014
Stud
ents
age
d 8
to 1
5 ye
ars o
ldCB
T in
terv
entio
n (F
RIEN
DS p
rogr
am)
Stud
ents
cat
egor
ized
as b
eing
at l
ow ri
sk fo
r anx
iety
di
sord
ers d
emon
stra
ted
decr
ease
d le
vels
of a
nxie
ty
at p
ost-t
est.
The
ES (H
edge
s’ g
) was
smal
l (−
0.26
) but
st
atisti
cally
sign
ifica
nt. T
he h
ighe
st st
atisti
cally
sign
ifica
nt
decr
ease
in le
vel o
f anx
iety
for l
ow ri
sk st
uden
ts w
as
foun
d fo
r fol
low
-up
mea
sure
men
ts th
at o
ccur
red
up to
12
mon
ths p
ost-i
nter
venti
on, w
ith a
smal
l to
med
ium
ES
of -
0.31
. Stu
dies
of l
ow ri
sk st
uden
ts th
at in
clud
ed
follo
w-u
p m
easu
rem
ents
at 1
2 m
onth
s pos
t-int
erve
ntion
w
ere
not s
tatis
tical
ly si
gnifi
cant
and
show
ed a
smal
l ES
of
-0.0
9. H
owev
er, fi
ndin
gs w
ere
not m
aint
aine
d w
hen
low
qu
ality
stud
ies w
ere
rem
oved
from
the
anal
ysis.

114
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
30. T
anne
r-S
mit
h E
E, D
urla
k JA
, Mar
x R
A. E
mp
iric
ally
Bas
ed M
ean
Eff
ect
Siz
e D
istr
ibut
ions
fo
r U
nive
rsal
Pre
vent
ion
Pro
gra
ms
Targ
etin
g S
cho
ol-
Ag
ed Y
out
h: A
Rev
iew
of
Met
a-A
naly
ses.
P
reve
ntio
n S
cien
ce [
Inte
rnet
]. 2
018
No
v [c
ited
201
9 Ju
ly 2
6]; 1
9(8)
:109
1-11
01. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
ww
w.n
cbi.n
lm.n
ih.g
ov/
pub
med
/301
3624
5FO
CU
S O
F R
EV
IEW
RE
VIE
W M
ETH
OD
S
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
Sch
ool-a
ge y
outh
(a
ges 5
-18)
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 198
6-20
15#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 7
4 in
met
a-an
alys
es
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: M
ean
age
of p
artic
ipan
ts
in th
e m
eta-
anal
yses
incl
uded
in o
vera
ll m
eta-
anal
ysis
rang
es
from
10.
44 to
16
year
s old
. Mea
n ag
e of
ove
rall
met
a-an
alys
is w
as 1
2.33
with
a st
anda
rd d
evia
tion
of 1
.66.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s:
All p
rogr
ams:
Acr
oss a
ll pr
even
tion
prog
ram
s inc
lude
d in
the
met
a-an
alys
es (i
.e.,
rega
rdle
ss o
f pro
gram
targ
et),
prog
ram
s had
the
larg
est p
ostte
st e
ffect
s on
know
ledg
e (P
25 [2
5th
perc
entil
e] =
0.2
5, M
edia
n =
0.40
, P75
[75t
h pe
rcen
tile]
= 0
.57)
, and
soci
al c
ompe
tenc
e ou
tcom
es
(P25
= 0
.19,
Med
ian
= 0.
23, P
75 =
0.5
7). C
onve
rsel
y, th
e sm
alle
st e
ffect
s wer
e re
port
ed fo
r sub
stan
ce u
se (P
25
= 0.
05, M
edia
n =
0.07
, P75
= 0
.11)
, mar
ijuan
a us
e (P
25 =
0.
03, M
edia
n =
0.09
, P75
= 0
.13)
, tob
acco
use
(P25
= 0
.04,
M
edia
n =
0.10
, P75
= 0
.16)
, and
alc
ohol
use
out
com
es
(P25
= 0
.05,
Med
ian
= 0.
10, P
75 =
0.1
5). T
he d
istrib
ution
of
the
mea
n eff
ects
var
ied
subs
tanti
ally
acr
oss t
he d
iffer
ent
outc
ome
dom
ains
.Ex
tern
alizi
ng P
reve
ntion
Pro
gram
s: F
iftee
n m
eta-
anal
yses
(nes
= 3
1) e
xam
ined
the
effec
t of u
nive
rsal
ex
tern
alizi
ng p
reve
ntion
pro
gram
s for
you
th. T
hese
pr
ogra
ms h
ad th
e la
rges
t ave
rage
pos
ttest
effe
cts o
n kn
owle
dge
(P25
= 0
.48,
Med
ian
= 0.
72, P
75 =
0.9
8),
inte
rnal
izing
(P25
= 0
.43,
Med
ian
= 0.
43, P
75 =
0.4
3),
and
victi
miza
tion
outc
omes
(P25
= 0
.19,
Med
ian
= 0.
21,
P 75 =
0.2
7). A
vera
ge p
rogr
am e
ffect
s wer
e sm
alle
r fo
r oth
er m
easu
res o
f ext
erna
lizin
g be
havi
or su
ch a
s ag
gres
sive/
disr
uptiv
e be
havi
or, a
ntiso
cial
beh
avio
r, ge
nera
l del
inqu
ency
, and
oth
er c
ondu
ct p
robl
ems.
The
di
strib
ution
s of e
xter
naliz
ing
prev
entio
n pr
ogra
m e
ffect
s te
nded
to b
e un
iform
ly d
istrib
uted
with
in o
utco
me
type
.In
tern
alizi
ng P
reve
ntion
Pro
gram
s: E
leve
n m
eta-
anal
yses
(n
es =
26)
exa
min
ed th
e eff
ect o
f int
erna
lizin
g pr
even
tion
and
prom
otion
pro
gram
s for
you
th. T
hese
pro
gram
s ex
hibi
ted
the
larg
est b
enefi
cial
ave
rage
pos
ttest
effe
cts
on so
cial
com
pete
nce
(P25
= 0
.00,
Med
ian
= 0.
51, P
75
= 0.
78),
whi
ch w
ere
nota
bly
high
er th
an e
ffect
s on
mea
sure
s of i
nter
naliz
ing
beha
vior
(P25
= 0
.09,
Med
ian
= 0.
12, P
75 =
0.4
4), a
nd se
lf-co
ncep
t out
com
es (P
25 =
0.
03, M
edia
n =
0.09
, P75
= 0
.70)
. The
dist
ributi
ons o
f in
tern
alizi
ng p
rogr
am e
ffect
s ten
ded
to b
e po
sitive
ly
skew
ed.
Pros
ocia
l Pro
moti
on P
rogr
ams:
Six
met
a-an
alys
es
(nes
= 4
5) e
xam
ined
the
effec
t of p
roso
cial
pro
moti
on
prog
ram
s for
you
th. P
roso
cial
pro
moti
on p
rogr
ams h
ad
the
larg
est a
vera
ge e
ffect
s on
self-
conc
ept (
P 25 =
0.4
6,
Med
ian
= 0.
58, P
75 =
0.6
9), a
cade
mic
s (P 25
= 0
.26,
Med
ian
= 0.
31, P
75 =
0.4
6), a
nd so
cial
com
pete
nce
outc
omes
(P
25 =
0.2
0, M
edia
n =
0.25
, P75
= 0
.59)
. Mos
t mea
n eff
ects
for p
roso
cial
beh
avio
r pro
moti
on p
rogr
ams f
ell
with
in th
e 0
to 0
.50
rang
e; h
owev
er, t
he d
istrib
ution
of
effe
cts w
as w
ider
for s
ocia
l com
pete
nce
outc
omes
. Fu
rthe
rmor
e, p
roso
cial
pro
gram
s obt
aine
d th
e hi
ghes
t av
erag
e eff
ects
of a
ll pr
even
tion
prog
ram
s on
acad
emic
ou
tcom
es (M
edia
n =
0.31
) and
hig
her a
vera
ge e
ffect
s on
ext
erna
lizin
g be
havi
or o
utco
mes
than
pro
gram
s ta
rgeti
ng e
xter
naliz
ing
prob
lem
s (M
edia
n =
0.24
vs
Med
ian
= 0.
16, r
espe
ctive
ly).
As n
oted
by
auth
or: A
utho
r not
es th
at th
ese
prog
ram
s do
not
add
ress
all
aspe
cts o
f you
th a
djus
tmen
t and
w
ell-b
eing
(did
not
incl
ude
phys
ical
hea
lth o
r aca
dem
ic
achi
evem
ent o
utco
mes
). Au
thor
not
es th
at o
ne m
ay
expe
ct a
hig
her m
agni
tude
of e
ffect
s for
indi
cate
d pr
even
tion
prog
ram
s, a
nd th
us fo
cusin
g on
prim
ary
prev
entio
n pr
ogra
ms m
ay li
mit
effec
ts o
bser
ved
for t
hese
pr
ogra
ms.
Aut
hor a
lso re
com
men
ds th
at e
nviro
nmen
tal-
or p
olic
y-le
vel i
nter
venti
ons s
houl
d no
t be
negl
ecte
d,
whi
ch th
is re
view
doe
s.
Met
a-an
alys
is al
so fo
cuse
d on
sum
mar
izing
the
dist
ributi
on o
f mea
n eff
ect s
izes a
s rep
orte
d in
prio
r m
eta-
anal
yses
, but
not
thos
e eff
ects
repo
rted
in th
e in
divi
dual
stud
ies i
nclu
ded
in th
e m
eta-
anal
yses
.M
any
met
a-an
alys
es in
clud
ed fo
cuse
d on
a si
ngle
ou
tcom
e, a
nd m
any
also
faile
d to
repo
rt m
ean
effec
t size
s se
para
tely
for i
mpo
rtan
t sub
grou
ps o
f you
th (e
.g.,
age,
ra
ce, e
thni
city
, gen
der,
sexu
al o
rient
ation
). Fe
w m
eta-
anal
yses
exa
min
ed o
utco
mes
at f
ollo
w-u
p pe
riods
.

115
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Uni
vers
al d
rug
prev
entio
n pr
ogra
ms,
uni
vers
al e
xter
naliz
ing
prev
entio
n pr
ogra
ms,
Uni
vers
al in
tern
alizi
ng p
rogr
ams,
uni
vers
al se
xual
be
havi
or p
reve
ntion
pro
gram
s, u
nive
rsal
pro
soci
al p
rom
otion
pr
ogra
ms.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Di
sser
tatio
ns a
nd T
hese
s (U.
S., U
K, a
nd
Glob
al),
ERIC
, Psy
cIN
FO, P
Q C
rimin
al
Justi
ce, P
Q E
duca
tion,
PQ
Fam
ily
Heal
th, P
Q H
ealth
& M
edic
al C
ompl
ete,
PQ
Hea
lth M
anag
emen
t, PQ
Nur
sing
& A
llied
Hea
lth, P
Q P
sych
olog
y, P
Q
Scie
nce,
PQ
Soc
ial S
cien
ce, S
ocia
l Se
rvic
es a
nd A
bstr
acts
, Soc
iolo
gica
l Ab
stra
cts,
Cam
pbel
l Col
labo
ratio
n,
Coch
rane
Col
labo
ratio
n.
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
abo
ve)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
(see
abo
ve)
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: M
eta-
anal
yses
had
to fo
cus o
n un
iver
sal
or p
rimar
y pr
even
tion
prog
ram
s ai
med
at p
reve
nting
pro
blem
atic
beha
vior
or e
moti
onal
pro
blem
s am
ong
yout
h. T
hose
that
con
tain
ed
a m
ix o
f pre
venti
on p
rogr
am ty
pes
wer
e on
ly in
clud
ed if
resu
lts w
ere
pres
ente
d se
para
tely
for t
he u
nive
rsal
pr
even
tion
prog
ram
s. O
nly
psyc
hoso
cial
in
terv
entio
ns th
at in
volv
ed d
irect
wor
k w
ith sc
hool
-age
you
th w
ere
elig
ible
. M
eta-
anal
yses
that
incl
ude
stud
ies
with
old
er/y
oung
er p
artic
ipan
ts w
ere
only
incl
uded
if th
ey p
rese
nted
resu
lts
for y
outh
age
d 5-
18 se
para
tely.
Met
a-an
alys
es h
ad to
repo
rt a
t lea
st o
ne m
ean
effec
t size
on
an a
ttitu
dina
l, be
havi
oral
, or
men
tal h
ealth
out
com
e m
easu
re.
Met
a-an
alys
es m
ust b
e av
aila
ble
in
Engl
ish.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: aca
dem
ics,
soci
al c
ompe
tenc
e, se
lf-co
ncep
t, vi
ctim
izatio
n, v
iole
nce/
abus
e, e
xter
naliz
ing,
inte
rnal
izing
, se
xual
beh
avio
r, su
bsta
nce
use,
alc
ohol
use
, tob
acco
use
, m
ariju
ana
use,
atti
tude
s to
drug
s, p
roso
cial
atti
tude
s,
know
ledg
e
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Met
a-an
alys
es o
f pr
even
tion
prog
ram
s who
se p
rimar
y ai
m w
as to
cha
nge
phys
ical
hea
lth o
r ed
ucati
onal
out
com
es w
ere
excl
uded
. In
terv
entio
ns th
at fo
cuse
d on
cha
ngin
g la
ws o
r pol
icie
s wer
e ex
clud
ed.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: (
see
abov
e)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A St
atem
ent
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
s, c
omm
uniti
esCo
untr
y(ie
s): G
loba
lLe
vel (
e.g.
, nati
onal
, com
mun
ity/n
eigh
borh
ood,
scho
ol,
fam
ily, w
ork,
recr
eatio
n, O
ST):
Scho
ol, C
omm
unity

116
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
31. T
aylo
r, O
ber
le, D
urla
k &
Wei
ssb
erg
, 201
7.P
rom
oti
ng p
osi
tive
yo
uth
dev
elo
pm
ent
thro
ugh
scho
ol-
bas
ed s
oci
al a
nd e
mo
tio
nal l
earn
ing
inte
rven
tio
ns: A
met
a-an
alys
is o
f fo
llow
-up
eff
ects
. ht
tps:
//d
oi.o
rg/1
0.11
11/c
dev
.128
64. h
ttp
s://
dp
i.wi.g
ov/
site
s/d
efau
lt/fi
les/
imce
/ssp
w/p
df/
Tayl
or_
et_a
l_-_
FIN
AL_
do
cum
ent_
6_17
_201
7_2.
pd
f. S
upp
ort
ing
info
rmat
ion
at h
ttp
s://
onl
inel
ibra
ry.w
iley.
com
/do
i/ab
s/10
.111
1/cd
ev.1
2864
.
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
RE
LEVA
NT
FIN
DIN
GS
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
NO
TES
All a
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
K-1
2, m
ean
age
11Da
te ra
nge:
198
1-De
cem
ber 2
014
# of
stud
ies i
nclu
ded
over
all:
82, 1
1 on
ado
lesc
ents
The
SEL
inte
rven
tions
var
ied
in g
ener
al p
roce
dure
s,
whi
ch o
f the
cor
e SE
L co
mpe
tenc
ies w
ere
targ
eted
, and
w
hat o
utco
mes
wer
e us
ed to
ass
ess p
rogr
am im
pact
. Ho
wev
er, m
ost i
ncor
pora
ted
the
4 SA
FE (s
eque
nced
, ac
tive,
focu
sed,
exp
licit)
pro
gram
feat
ures
sugg
este
d as
be
st p
racti
ces f
or S
EL im
plem
enta
tion.
Age
has
sign
ifica
nt
cova
riate
s (e.
g., d
urati
on o
f pro
gram
was
hig
her f
or lo
wer
ag
e gr
oups
). An
alys
es b
y ra
ce a
nd S
ES w
ere
limite
d by
m
issin
g da
ta. L
evel
s of e
ffecti
vene
ss c
ould
not
be
stud
ied
by p
rogr
am c
ompo
nent
s.
Of t
he st
udie
s rep
ortin
g on
the
follo
win
g va
riabl
es:
41.1
.% o
f stu
dent
s w
ere
from
low
SES
ho
useh
olds
; 45.
85%
w
ere
stud
ents
of c
olor
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
up in
clud
ed re
leva
nt to
H.S
. age
d te
ens a
ges 1
3-18
- sp
ecify
by
age
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up –
14-
18-y
ear-o
lds
Data
base
s sea
rche
d:
High
-leve
l find
ings
: Sta
tistic
ally
sign
ifica
nt M
ean
effec
t size
s for
7 o
utco
mes
rang
ed fr
om g
=.13
to
.33.
Spe
cific
ally,
for P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es o
f SEL
skill
s (.2
3), S
E La
titud
es (.
13),
positi
ve so
cial
beh
avio
r (.1
3), e
moti
onal
dist
ress
(.16
). (a
ll gr
ades
)Ac
ross
age
gro
ups,
soci
al-e
moti
onal
skill
s pre
dict
ed
prim
ary
outc
omes
, but
soci
al-e
moti
onal
atti
tude
s di
d no
t.Ac
ross
age
gro
ups,
no
diffe
renc
es w
ere
foun
d by
st
uden
t div
ersit
y pr
ofile
, SES
, urb
anic
ity, o
r cou
ntry
of
inte
rven
tion
(U.S
. v. a
broa
d).
High
er to
tal s
ampl
e att
rition
at f
ollo
w-u
p w
as
asso
ciat
ed w
ith lo
wer
ES.
Inte
rven
tion(
s) T
ype/
Nam
e—O
vera
ll: U
nive
rsal
scho
ol-b
ased
SE
L pr
ogra
m. M
ost w
ere
clas
sroo
m-b
ased
skill
s dev
elop
men
t on
ly. A
min
ority
also
had
add
ition
al c
ompo
nent
s suc
h as
eff
orts
to e
nhan
ce c
lass
room
or s
choo
l clim
ate,
var
ious
sc
hool
-wid
e in
itiati
ves,
or p
aren
t inv
olve
men
t.
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria S
tudi
es h
ad to
hav
e co
llect
ed fo
llow
-up
data
from
inte
rven
tion
and
cont
rol g
roup
s 6 m
onth
s or m
ore
posti
nter
venti
on; c
onta
ined
suffi
cien
t dat
a to
cal
cula
te a
n eff
ect s
ize o
n at
leas
t one
ou
tcom
e
13-1
8-ye
ar-o
ld (o
r sim
ilar)
Tee
n sp
ecifi
c fin
ding
s:
(or s
ee T
een
Tabl
e be
low
): Ac
ross
out
com
es, t
he m
ean
effec
t size
for
14-1
8-ye
ar-o
lds w
as g
=.18
, sig
nific
antly
diff
eren
t fr
om th
e ES
for c
hild
ren
(.27)
or e
arly
ado
lesc
ents
(.1
2), w
hen
cons
ider
ed a
lone
, but
not
in th
e m
eta-
regr
essio
n in
clud
ing
age
and
attriti
on.
Inte
rven
tion(
s) T
ype/
Nam
e--e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
-yea
r-ol
ds o
r eq
uiva
lent
(spe
cify
): no
t pro
vide
d se
para
tely.
Re
view
exc
lusi
on c
riter
ia S
ee in
clus
ion
crite
ria
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall
--inc
lude
all
but h
ighl
ight
PS
WEB
out
com
es: p
ositi
ve so
cial
beh
avio
r; ac
adem
ic
succ
ess;
con
duct
pro
blem
s; e
moti
onal
dis
tres
s; d
rug
use.
So
cial
and
em
otion
al a
sset
s (sk
ills a
nd a
ttitu
des)
wer
e ad
ditio
nal m
easu
red
outc
omes
and
use
d as
pre
dict
ors o
f the
pr
imar
y ou
tcom
es. A
dditi
onal
out
com
es (p
eer a
nd fa
mily
re
latio
nshi
ps, m
enta
l hea
lth a
djus
tmen
t) w
ere
mea
sure
d ac
ross
all
age
grou
ps.
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): Ba
sed
on p
roce
ss u
sed
by
Durla
k, 2
011
(pre
viou
s rev
iew
of S
EL)
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
-yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB:
ove
rall
ES
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for s
ocia
l/bu
ilt/s
truc
tura
l env
ironm
ents
an
d/or
peo
ple
surr
ound
ing
13-1
8-ye
ar-o
lds (
glob
al/c
ultu
ral,
natio
nal,
com
mun
ity, i
nter
pers
onal
leve
l)--S
peci
fy o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
it is
mea
sure
d: N
ot in
clud
ed (e
xplic
itly)
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
sCo
untr
y(ie
s): U
.S a
nd o
ther
St
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s): n
ot
repo
rted
Leve
l (e.
g., g
loba
l/cu
ltura
l, na
tiona
l, co
mm
unity
, in
terp
erso
nal):
scho
ol

117
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
32. T
illm
ann
S, T
ob
in D
, Avi
son
W, G
illila
nd J
. Men
tal H
ealt
h B
enefi
ts o
f In
tera
ctio
ns w
ith
Nat
ure
in C
hild
ren
and
Tee
nag
ers:
A S
yste
mat
ic R
evie
w. J
our
nal o
f E
pid
emio
log
y an
d C
om
mun
ity
Hea
lth
[Int
erne
t]. 2
018
Oct
[ci
ted
201
9 A
ug 2
7]; 7
2(10
):958
-966
. Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/2
9950
520
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
chi
ldre
n an
d te
enag
ers (
0-18
yea
rs)
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 199
0-20
17#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 3
5 As
not
ed b
y au
thor
: The
subj
ectiv
e na
ture
of
obse
rvati
onal
stud
ies d
oes n
ot a
llow
for a
cle
ar ‘y
es’ o
r ‘n
o’ a
nsw
er to
som
e qu
estio
ns d
esig
ned
for i
nter
venti
on-
base
d st
udie
s. F
urth
erm
ore,
pap
ers b
ased
on
qual
itativ
e m
etho
ds w
ere
not i
nclu
ded
in th
is re
view
due
to
the
diffi
culti
es o
f com
parin
g fin
ding
s am
ong
stud
ies.
Th
eir i
nclu
sion
may
hav
e pr
ovid
ed fo
r a m
ore
fulso
me
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
bene
fits o
f nat
ure
for t
he m
enta
l he
alth
of c
hild
ren
and
teen
ager
s. A
utho
rs w
ere
unab
le to
co
mpl
ete
a m
eta-
anal
ysis
with
the
35 st
udie
s col
lect
ed
due
to th
e he
tero
gene
ity o
f the
mea
sure
s use
d in
eac
h st
udy.
The
maj
ority
of t
he st
udie
s had
fairl
y sm
all s
ampl
e siz
es a
nd w
ere
from
Eur
ope,
Nor
th A
mer
ica
and
othe
r de
velo
ped
regi
ons w
hich
can
also
lim
it th
e ge
nera
lizab
ility
of
the
findi
ngs.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: (
see
tabl
e)
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: T
his r
evie
w sh
owed
sign
ifica
nt
positi
ve fi
ndin
gs o
n th
e be
nefit
s of n
atur
e fo
r all
men
tal h
ealth
out
com
es; h
owev
er, A
DD/A
DHD,
ov
eral
l men
tal h
ealth
, str
ess,
resi
lienc
e an
d HR
QO
L w
ere
the
only
out
com
es th
at d
emon
stra
ted
mor
e po
sitiv
e si
gnifi
cant
find
ings
ove
r non
-sig
nific
ant
findi
ngs.
Sev
eral
out
com
es (e
moti
onal
wel
l-bei
ng,
self-
este
em, d
epre
ssio
n) w
ere
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
a gr
eate
r num
ber o
f non
-sig
nific
ant fi
ndin
gs
than
pos
itive
sign
ifica
nt fi
ndin
gs, s
uppo
rting
the
inco
nclu
sive
natu
re o
f the
evi
denc
e re
port
ed in
pr
evio
us re
view
s.Cl
early
add
ition
al re
sear
ch is
nee
ded,
with
mor
e rig
orou
s stu
dy d
esig
ns, t
o co
nfirm
the
bene
fits o
f na
ture
inte
racti
ons a
nd m
enta
l hea
lth o
utco
mes
.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Inte
rven
tions
that
in
clud
e se
ek to
impr
ove
acce
ssib
ility
, eng
agem
ent,
or e
xpos
ure
to n
atur
e (e
.g.,
Wild
erne
ss T
hera
py p
rogr
ams,
Out
door
Ad
vent
ure
Prog
ram
s, G
reen
and
Blu
e Sp
aces
, etc
.)
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Pub
Med
, SC
OPU
S, P
sycI
NFO
, Geo
base
, Pro
Que
st,
SPO
RTDi
scus
, Soc
ialo
gica
l Abs
trac
ts, L
eisu
re
and
Tour
ism D
atab
ase,
Phy
sical
Edu
catio
n In
dex,
EM
BASE
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
(see
tabl
e)
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
s—ex
amin
ed fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or
equ
ival
ent (
spec
ify):
(see
tabl
e)
Revi
ew in
clus
ion
crite
ria—
Focu
s on
stud
y m
etho
dolo
gy: T
o be
incl
uded
, stu
dies
mus
t 1)
incl
ude
child
ren
and
teen
ager
s age
d 18
an
d un
der;
2) in
volv
ed a
n in
terv
entio
n th
at
inco
rpor
ated
an
elem
ent o
f nat
ure;
3) a
sses
s ou
tcom
e va
riabl
es th
at in
clud
e a
com
pone
nt
of m
enta
l hea
lth; a
nd 4
) be
of a
qua
ntita
tive
desig
n.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
ove
rall—
incl
ude
all b
ut h
ighl
ight
PSE
WB
outc
omes
: Em
otion
al w
ell-b
eing
, atte
ntion
defi
cit d
isord
er/
hype
racti
vity
diso
rder
(ADD
/ADH
D), o
vera
ll m
enta
l hea
lth, s
elf-
este
em, s
tres
s, d
epre
ssio
n, re
silie
nce.
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
crit
eria
—Fo
cus o
n st
udy
met
hodo
logy
: Exc
lusio
n fr
om th
e re
view
w
as b
ased
on
a fa
ilure
to m
eet t
he in
clus
ion
crite
ria d
etai
led
abov
e.
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: (
see
tabl
e)
Gui
danc
e us
ed to
stru
ctur
e re
view
(e.g
., PR
ISM
A, G
RADE
): PR
ISM
A
Out
com
es e
xam
ined
: Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or
peop
le su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
s, w
oodl
ands
, com
mun
ities
Coun
try(
ies)
: U.S
., U.
K., C
anad
aSt
ate/
regi
on/l
ocal
ity(ie
s) (e
ven
with
in o
ther
cou
ntrie
s): n
ot
repo
rted
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, sc
hool
, fa
mily
, wor
k, re
crea
tion,
OST
): Sc
hool
, Com
mun
ity, I
ndiv
idua
l

118
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
TE
EN
-SP
EC
IFIC
FIN
DIN
GS
AU
THO
RTE
EN
AG
E G
RO
UP
IN S
TUD
YIN
TER
VE
NTI
ON
OU
TCO
ME
NO
TES
Bow
en, 2
016
13-1
6O
utdo
or A
dven
ture
Sign
ifica
nt im
prov
emen
t (p<
0.05
) in
one
mea
sure
of
men
tal h
ealth
(psy
chol
ogic
al w
ell-b
eing
) at t
he 6
-12
mon
th fo
llow
afte
r 15
prog
ram
min
g da
ys d
urin
g a
10-1
2 w
eek
outd
oor a
dven
ture
pro
gram
. No
signi
fican
t effe
ct
on o
vera
ll m
enta
l hea
lth o
r psy
chol
ogic
al d
istre
ss a
t the
6-
12 m
onth
follo
w u
p m
ark.
No
signi
fican
t effe
ct o
n al
l m
easu
res o
f men
tal h
ealth
imm
edia
tely
pos
t-int
erve
ntion
.
Poor
qua
lity
ratin
g.
Bow
en, 2
016
12-1
8W
ilder
ness
The
rapy
No
signi
fican
t effe
ct fr
om p
re-p
ost a
fter t
he 1
0 w
eek
Wild
erne
ss T
hera
py p
rogr
am o
n em
otion
al fu
nctio
ning
in
clin
ical
and
non
-clin
ical
chi
ldre
n ag
es 1
2-18
. No
signi
fican
t eff
ect a
fter a
3 m
onth
follo
w-u
p. N
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
fr
om p
re-p
ost o
n su
icid
ality
. The
re w
as a
stati
stica
lly
signi
fican
t red
uctio
n (p
<0.1
) at 3
mon
th fo
llow
up
on
suic
idal
ity. S
tatis
tical
ly si
gnifi
cant
impr
ovem
ent (
p <0
.1)
from
pre
- to
post
-inte
rven
tion
in 1
of 4
subs
cale
s of
self-
este
em (s
ocia
l). T
his e
ffect
was
still
obse
rved
at t
he
3 m
onth
follo
w u
p m
ark
(p<0
.1).
Stati
stica
lly si
gnifi
cant
im
prov
emen
t (p<
0.1)
from
pre
- to
post
inte
rven
tion
in
clin
ical
ly d
epre
ssed
chi
ldre
n. N
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
at t
he
3 m
onth
follo
w u
p on
clin
ical
ly d
epre
ssed
chi
ldre
n. N
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
from
pre
- to
post
inte
rven
tion
or a
t 3
mon
th fo
llow
up
on n
on-c
linic
ally
dep
ress
ed c
hild
ren.
St
atisti
cally
sign
ifica
nt im
prov
emen
t in
resil
ienc
e fr
om
pre-
to p
ost-i
nter
venti
on (p
<0.1
).
Fair
qual
ity ra
ting.
Cam
mac
k, 2
002
12-1
8Ho
rticu
lture
Pro
gram
No
signi
fican
t effe
ct a
fter t
he 1
0 w
eek
prog
ram
on
self-
este
emFa
ir qu
ality
ratin
g.
Clar
k, 2
004
13-1
8W
ilder
ness
The
rapy
Sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
(p<0
.05)
on
clin
ical
synd
rom
es sc
ales
aft
er th
e 21
-day
Wild
erne
ss T
hera
py p
rogr
am.
Good
qua
lity
ratin
g.
Feda
, 201
512
-15
Park
sPe
rcen
tage
of p
ark
area
with
in a
800
m b
uffer
of h
ome
pred
icte
d pe
rcei
ved
stre
ss (p
<0.0
5), e
ven
whe
n co
ntro
lled
for S
ES a
nd p
hysic
al a
ctivi
ty.
Fair
qual
ity ra
ting.
Gree
nwoo
d, 2
016
16-1
8Ex
posu
re to
the
Out
door
sPo
sitive
sign
ifica
nt in
crea
se (p
< 0
.01)
in p
ositi
ve a
ffect
aft
er ti
me
spen
t in
outd
oor e
nviro
nmen
t, re
ducti
on in
po
sitive
affe
ct a
fter ti
me
spen
t in
indo
or e
nviro
nmen
t. N
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
of e
nviro
nmen
t on
atten
tiven
ess.
Att
entio
n sc
ores
wer
e re
duce
d sig
nific
antly
mor
e (p
<
0.01
) afte
r 20
min
utes
spen
t in
the
outd
oor e
nviro
nmen
t th
an in
the
indo
or e
nviro
nmen
t.
Poor
qua
lity
ratin
g.
Gubb
els,
201
612
-15
Gree
nery
No
signi
fican
t effe
ct o
f cha
nges
of p
erce
ived
gre
ener
y on
de
pres
sive
sym
ptom
s.Fa
ir qu
ality
ratin
g.
Harp
er, 2
007
13-1
8W
ilder
ness
The
rapy
12 m
onth
s fol
low
ing
the
21 d
ay W
ilder
ness
The
rapy
ther
e w
as a
sign
ifica
nt im
prov
emen
t on
suic
idal
thou
ghts
/id
eatio
n (p
<0.0
1). N
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
2 m
onth
s fol
low
ing
Wild
erne
ss T
hera
py o
n ot
her c
ompo
nent
s of m
enta
l he
alth
.
Fair
qual
ity ra
ting.
Hind
s, 2
011
12-1
5W
oodl
and
Educ
ation
No
signi
fican
t effe
ct o
f the
2-5
nig
ht W
oodl
and
Educ
ation
pr
ogra
m o
n se
lf-es
teem
.Fa
ir qu
ality
ratin
g.
Huyn
h, 2
013
11-1
6N
atur
al S
pace
, Gre
en S
pace
, Blu
e Sp
ace
Scho
ol su
rrou
ndin
g Bl
ue S
pace
had
a p
ositi
ve, s
igni
fican
t eff
ect (
p<0.
05) o
n em
otion
al w
ell-b
eing
. No
signi
fican
t eff
ect o
f sch
ool s
urro
undi
ng n
atur
al o
r gre
en sp
ace
on
emoti
onal
wel
l-bei
ng.
Fair
qual
ity ra
ting.
Kelz,
201
513
-15
Scho
olya
rdGr
eeni
ng o
f the
scho
olya
rd sa
w a
sign
ifica
nt in
crea
se in
in
tra-
psyc
hic
bala
nce
com
pare
d to
bot
h co
ntro
l sch
ools
(p<0
.01)
. No
signi
fican
t effe
ct o
f the
gre
enin
g of
the
scho
olya
rd o
n ov
eral
l wel
l-bei
ng.
Fair
qual
ity b
eing
.

119
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
Kuo,
200
45-
18Gr
een
Out
door
sGr
een
outd
oor a
ctivi
ties a
fter s
choo
l and
on
wee
kend
s w
ere
signi
fican
tly m
ore
help
ful (
p <
0.01
) in
redu
cing
sy
mpt
oms t
han
built
out
door
or i
ndoo
r acti
vitie
s. T
his
held
for c
hild
ren
with
and
with
out h
yper
activ
ity a
s wel
l as
whe
n ac
tivity
type
was
con
trol
led
for.
Poor
qua
lity
ratin
g.
Mut
z, 2
016
14O
utdo
or A
dven
ture
Sign
ifica
nt in
crea
se in
min
dful
ness
(p<0
.05)
from
T1
to
T2 a
fter a
9 d
ay h
ike.
Sig
nific
ant i
ncre
ase
in m
ean
life
satis
facti
on (p
<0.0
5) fr
om T
1 to
T2.
No
signi
fican
t effe
ct
from
the
hike
on
happ
ines
s. N
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
on
the
stre
ss su
bsca
le o
f wor
ries.
Sig
nific
ant d
ecre
ase
(p<0
.05)
in
the
stre
ss su
bsca
le o
f dem
and
from
T1
to T
2.
Poor
qua
lity
ratin
g.
Opp
er, 2
014
Grad
e 10
Out
door
Adv
entu
re E
duca
tion
Follo
win
g th
e 23
day
Out
door
Adv
entu
re E
duca
tion
prog
ram
ther
e w
as a
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
(p<0
.05)
on
moo
d in
gra
de te
n m
ales
. 3 m
onth
s fol
low
ing
the
prog
ram
, th
ere
was
still
a sig
nific
ant e
ffect
on
moo
d in
gra
de 1
0 m
ales
. Sig
nific
ant e
ffect
on
stre
ss (p
<0.0
5) in
gra
de 1
0 m
ales
pos
t int
erve
ntion
, but
no
signi
fican
t effe
ct o
n st
ress
at
3 m
onth
follo
w u
p.
Good
qua
lity
ratin
g.
Ritc
hie,
201
412
-18
Out
door
Adv
entu
re L
eade
rshi
p Ex
perie
nce
No
signi
fican
t effe
ct o
n m
enta
l hea
lth sc
ores
from
pr
e- to
pos
t-int
erve
ntion
to 1
yea
r fol
low
up
of th
e 10
w
eek
Out
door
Adv
entu
re L
eade
rshi
p Ex
perie
nce.
No
signi
fican
t effe
ct o
n se
lf-es
teem
scor
es fr
om p
re- t
o po
st-
inte
rven
tion
to 1
yea
r fol
low
up.
At t
he 1
mon
th fo
llow
up
ther
e w
as a
sign
ifica
nt in
crea
se (p
<0.0
5) in
resil
ienc
e sc
ores
, but
scor
es re
turn
ed to
pre
-inte
rven
tion
leve
ls at
th
e 1
year
follo
w u
p.
Good
qua
lity
ratin
g.
Rom
i, 20
0415
-18
Wild
erne
ss T
hera
pyN
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
from
the
prog
ram
on
self-
este
em.
No
signi
fican
t diff
eren
ce w
as fo
und
betw
een
the
grou
ps
befo
re a
nd a
fter t
he p
rogr
am.
Fair
qual
ity ra
ting.
Van
Den
Berg
, 201
19-
17N
atur
al (W
oode
d) S
etting
sN
o sig
nific
ant e
ffect
of n
atur
al w
oode
d se
tting
on
conc
entr
ation
.Go
od q
ualit
y ra
ting.
Van
Lier
, 201
612
-18
Gard
ens
Parti
cipa
ting
in g
arde
ning
at h
ome
was
sign
ifica
ntly
as
soci
ated
(p<0
.05)
with
bett
er m
enta
l wel
l-bei
ng. A
lso
signi
fican
tly a
ssoc
iate
d (p
<0.0
5) w
ith lo
wer
leve
ls of
de
pres
sive
sym
ptom
s.
Fair
qual
ity ra
ting.
War
d, 2
016
11-1
4Gr
een
Spac
eTi
me
spen
t in
gree
n sp
ace
was
sign
ifica
ntly,
pos
itive
ly
asso
ciat
ed (p
<0.0
5) w
ith a
ll m
easu
res o
f em
otion
al w
ell-
bein
g in
chi
ldre
n ag
es 1
1-14
; eve
n w
hen
cont
rolle
d fo
r m
oder
ate-
to-v
igor
ous p
hysic
al a
ctivi
ty.
Good
qua
lity
ratin
g.
Whi
tting
ton,
201
610
-15
Out
door
Adv
entu
rePa
rtici
patio
n in
the
Out
door
Adv
entu
re P
rogr
am w
as
asso
ciat
ed w
ith a
sign
ifica
nt in
crea
se in
resil
ienc
y an
d de
crea
se in
em
otion
al re
activ
ity in
girl
s pre
- to
post
-in
terv
entio
n (p
<0.0
5). N
o sig
nific
ant a
ssoc
iate
d be
twee
n pa
rtici
patio
n an
d re
silie
nce
was
obs
erve
d at
the
1 m
onth
fo
llow
up
mar
k.
Good
qua
lity
ratin
g.

120
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
33. V
an G
enug
htse
n LV
, Dus
seld
orp
E, M
asse
y E
K, V
an E
mp
elen
P. E
ffec
tive
sel
f-re
gul
atio
n ch
ang
e te
chni
que
s to
pro
mo
te m
enta
l wel
lbei
ng a
mo
ng a
do
lesc
ents
: a m
eta-
anal
ysis
. Hea
lth
Psy
cho
log
y R
evie
w [
Inte
rnet
]. 2
016
No
v 24
[ci
ted
201
9 Ju
ly 2
6]; 1
1(1)
:53-
71. A
vaila
ble
fro
m: h
ttp
s://
ww
w.t
and
fonl
ine.
com
/do
i/ab
s/10
.108
0/17
4371
99.2
016.
1252
934
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SS
YS
TEM
ATIC
RE
VIE
W L
IMIT
ATIO
NS
N
OTE
S
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
12-
18 y
ears
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: 199
0-20
12#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 4
0
It w
ould
be
valu
able
to re
peat
the
anal
yses
with
a
larg
er se
t of s
tudi
es. I
n th
is m
eta-
anal
ysis,
stud
ies
inde
xed
in o
nly
four
onl
ine
data
base
s wer
e in
clud
ed.
19
stud
ies u
sed
a cl
uste
red
desig
n. T
his c
lust
ered
de
sign
was
not
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt in
our
met
a-an
alys
es.
Ri
sk o
f misc
ateg
oriza
tion:
Lar
ge v
arie
ty in
the
repo
rting
of c
hang
e te
chni
ques
use
d. F
or e
xam
ple,
se
vera
l tec
hniq
ues w
ere
used
rela
ting
to c
opin
g:
copi
ng p
lann
ing,
cop
ing
trai
ning
, cop
ing
skill
s, a
nd
rela
pse
prev
entio
n. M
any
stud
ies f
aile
d to
defi
ne
such
tech
niqu
es a
ny fu
rthe
r and
they
cou
ld n
ot b
e fu
rthe
r defi
ned
in th
e ta
xono
my.
Existi
ng ta
xono
mie
s ofte
n de
fine
SRTs
for b
ehav
iour
ch
ange
onl
y an
d w
ere
ther
efor
e no
t sui
tabl
e fo
r th
is re
view
on
men
tal w
ellb
eing
, whe
re e
moti
onal
re
gula
tion
is al
so v
ery
impo
rtan
t. ...
affec
t reg
ulati
on
was
und
er-r
epre
sent
ed in
exi
sting
taxo
nom
ies.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up: S
ee a
bove
.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: S
elf-r
egul
ation
inte
rven
tions
w
ere
foun
d to
be
smal
l to
mod
erat
ely
effec
tive
at
prom
oting
wel
l-bei
ng. T
arge
ting
adol
esce
nts a
t hig
h ris
k fo
r psy
chol
ogic
al w
ellb
eing
cou
ld b
enefi
t fro
m
the
SRTs
‘ask
ing
for s
ocia
l sup
port
’ and
‘mon
itorin
g an
d ev
alua
tion’
, pos
sibly
in th
at o
rder
.
Inte
rven
tion
Ove
rall:
Sel
f-Reg
ulati
on Te
chni
ques
[SRT
]11 w
hich
w
ere
divi
ded
into
two
cate
gorie
s:
Prim
ary
inte
rven
tions
= u
nive
rsal
, pop
ulati
on-b
ased
.Se
cond
ary
inte
rven
tions
= ta
rget
ed to
spec
ific
risk
grou
ps.
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Pub
Med
, Ps
ycIN
FO, W
eb o
f Sci
ence
, and
Em
base
Adol
esce
nt-S
peci
fic F
indi
ngs:
Prim
ary
inte
rven
tions
ha
d a
smal
l-to-
med
ium
effe
ct o
n se
lf-es
teem
and
in
tern
aliz
ing
beha
viou
r. Se
cond
ary
inte
rven
tions
ha
d a
med
ium
-to-
larg
e sh
ort-t
erm
effe
ct o
n in
tern
alizi
ng b
ehav
iour
and
self-
este
em. F
or
prim
ary
inte
rven
tions
the
effec
t size
s wer
e lo
wer
at
long
er te
rm fo
llow
-up,
whe
reas
seco
ndar
y in
terv
entio
ns sh
owed
that
pos
itive
out
com
es w
ere
mai
ntai
ned
at lo
nger
term
follo
w-u
p. N
o sig
nific
ant
effec
ts o
n ex
tern
aliz
ing
beha
viou
r wer
e fo
und
for
eith
er g
roup
of i
nter
venti
ons.
Inte
rven
tions
on
aver
age
used
four
out
of t
he n
ine
SRT
cate
gorie
s.
For p
rimar
y in
terv
entio
ns, t
here
was
not
a
sing
le S
RT th
at w
as a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith a
gre
ater
in
terv
entio
n eff
ect o
n in
tern
aliz
ing
beha
viou
r or
self-
este
em. I
n se
cond
ary
inte
rven
tions
, tho
se
incl
udin
g as
king
for s
ocia
l sup
port
had
a g
reat
eff
ect o
n in
tern
alizi
ng b
ehav
iour
. Tho
se in
clud
ing
mon
itorin
g an
d ev
alua
tion
had
a gr
eate
r effe
ct o
n se
lf-es
teem
.
Inte
rven
tion
exam
ined
for 1
3-18
yea
r-ol
ds o
r equ
ival
ent
(spe
cify
): Se
e ab
ove.
Re
view
incl
usio
n cr
iteria
: The
sear
ch w
as
limite
d to
pap
ers w
ritten
in E
nglis
h, G
erm
an,
or D
utch
. (1)
des
crib
ed a
self-
regu
latio
n in
terv
entio
n th
at (2
) aim
ed a
t im
prov
ing
men
tal o
r psy
chol
ogic
al w
ellb
eing
or
beha
viou
r and
that
repo
rted
cha
nges
in
wel
lbei
ng (3
) and
is e
valu
ated
in a
(qua
si)
rand
omise
d st
udy
amon
g (4
) ado
lesc
ents
.
Out
com
es o
vera
ll—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es:
Resil
ienc
e pr
otec
tive
fact
ors:
dep
ress
ive
sym
ptom
s, a
nxie
ty
sym
ptom
s, h
yper
activ
ity, c
ondu
ct p
robl
ems,
inte
rnal
izin
g pr
oble
ms,
ext
erna
lizin
g pr
oble
ms,
or g
ener
al p
sych
olog
ical
di
stre
ss. A
nd im
prov
ing
wel
lbei
ng fa
ctor
s.12
Revi
ew e
xclu
sion
: Stu
dies
cou
ld n
ot
incl
ude
clin
ical
ly d
iagn
osed
par
ticip
ants
(e
.g.,
inte
rven
tions
aim
ed a
t ado
lesc
ents
w
ith c
linic
ally
dia
gnos
ed d
epre
ssio
n).
Inte
rven
tions
incl
udin
g su
ch p
artic
ipan
t sa
mpl
es w
ere
excl
uded
from
this
stud
y.
Stud
ies w
ere
excl
uded
if th
ey d
id n
ot re
port
bo
th b
asel
ine
and
post
-inte
rven
tion
data
.
Out
com
es fo
r 13-
18 y
ear-
olds
or e
quiv
alen
t (sp
ecify
)—in
clud
e al
l but
hig
hlig
ht P
SEW
B ou
tcom
es: S
ee a
bove
. G
uida
nce
used
to st
ruct
ure
revi
ew (e
.g.,
PRIS
MA,
GRA
DE):
Coch
rane
Out
com
es fo
r Soc
ial/
built
env
ironm
ents
and
/or p
eopl
e su
rrou
ndin
g 13
-18
year
-old
s (N
ation
, Com
mun
ity,
Inte
rper
sona
l) –
Spec
ify o
utco
me
and
for w
hom
/wha
t it i
s m
easu
red:
N/A
Setti
ng(s
): Sc
hool
sCo
untr
y(ie
s): A
ustr
alia
, Isr
ael,
U.S.
, Aus
tral
ia, C
anad
a, U
.K.,
Spai
n, N
ethe
rland
s, S
love
nia,
Kor
ea, H
ong
Kong
, Tha
iland
, M
auriti
us, I
cela
nd
Stat
e/re
gion
/loc
ality
(ies)
(eve
n w
ithin
oth
er c
ount
ries)
: N/A
Leve
l (e.
g., n
ation
al, c
omm
unity
/nei
ghbo
rhoo
d, sc
hool
, fa
mily
, wor
k, re
crea
tion,
OST
): sc
hool

121
Rapid Evidence Review Appendix 5: Evidence Tables
34. Y
ap M
BH
, Mo
rgan
AJ,
Cai
rns
K, J
orm
AF,
Het
rick
SE
, Mer
ry S
. Par
ents
in p
reve
ntio
n: A
met
a-an
alys
is o
f ra
ndo
miz
ed c
ont
rolle
d t
rial
s o
f p
aren
ting
inte
rven
tio
ns t
o p
reve
nt in
tern
aliz
ing
p
rob
lem
s in
chi
ldre
n fr
om
bir
th t
o a
ge
18. C
linic
al P
sych
olo
gy
Rev
iew
[In
tern
et].
201
6 D
ec [
cite
d 2
019
July
26]
; 50:
138-
158.
Ava
ilab
le f
rom
: htt
ps:
//w
ww
.ncb
i.nlm
.nih
.go
v/p
ubm
ed/2
7969
003
FOC
US
OF
RE
VIE
WR
EV
IEW
ME
THO
DS
R
ELE
VAN
T FI
ND
ING
SR
EV
IEW
LIM
ITAT
ION
S
NO
TES
All A
ge/d
evel
opm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded:
You
th a
ged
0-18
ye
ars
Date
rang
e fo
r rev
iew
: Inc
eptio
n of
da
taba
ses s
earc
hed
- 201
5#
of st
udie
s inc
lude
d: 5
1 qu
alita
tive,
42
quan
titati
veAs
not
ed b
y au
thor
: It w
as b
eyon
d th
e sc
ope
of
the
curr
ent r
evie
w to
exa
min
e m
edia
tors
of t
he
inte
rven
tion
effec
ts fo
und;
aut
hors
cou
ld n
ot
adeq
uate
ly a
sses
s th
e qu
ality
of a
ll in
clud
ed tr
ials
be
caus
e of
poo
r rep
ortin
g; a
utho
rs a
lso
coul
d no
t as
sess
for m
oder
ation
by
inte
nsity
or d
urati
on o
f in
terv
entio
n du
e to
inad
equa
te d
escr
iptio
ns o
f thi
s as
pect
of i
nter
venti
on p
rogr
ams
in a
bout
one
-thi
rd o
f in
clud
ed tr
ials
. Clu
ster
ing
effec
ts w
ere
not a
ccou
nted
fo
r in
man
y st
udie
s. F
indi
ngs
may
not
gen
eral
ize to
et
hnic
min
oriti
es o
r dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s.
Non
e of
the
univ
ersa
l in
terv
entio
ns in
volv
ed
pare
nts o
f tee
ns.
Age/
deve
lopm
enta
l gro
ups i
nclu
ded
rele
vant
to H
S ag
ed
teen
s age
s 13-
18—
spec
ify b
y st
udy
if au
thor
doe
sn’t
aggr
egat
e by
rele
vant
age
gro
up:
3 st
udie
s inc
lude
d ad
oles
cent
s. A
dole
scen
t age
s wer
e no
t pr
ovid
ed.
Hi-L
evel
Fin
ding
s: C
ompa
red
to c
ontr
ols,
par
ent-
ing
inte
rven
tions
redu
ced
child
inte
rnal
izin
g,
depr
essi
ve, a
nd a
nxie
ty sy
mpt
oms,
at a
min
i-m
um o
f 6 m
onth
s aft
er th
e in
terv
entio
n w
as
deliv
ered
. The
mea
n eff
ects
wer
e sm
all-v
ery
smal
l but
com
para
ble
to o
ther
pre
venti
ve in
-te
rven
tions
and
cou
ld h
ave
a su
bsta
ntial
pub
lic
heal
th im
pact
.
Inte
rven
tion
Type
/Nam
e/Df
--Ove
rall:
Ran
dom
ized
cont
rolle
d tr
ials
of p
aren
ting
inte
rven
tions
to p
reve
nt in
tern
alizi
ng
prob
lem
s in
child
ren
Data
base
s sea
rche
d fo
r rev
iew
: Pub
Med
, Ps
ycIN
FO, E
MBA
SE, C
ochr
ane
Cent