Effectiveness of Mental Health Literacy Programs in Primary and Secondary Schools: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an increase in studies evaluating the effectiveness of mental health literacy programs within the context of education as a universal, preventive intervention. A systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the effectiveness of mental health literacy interventions in schools, from 2013 to the present, on mental health knowledge, stigma, and help-seeking is conducted. Of the 795 identified references, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Mental health knowledge increased after the interventions (standardized mean difference: SMD = 0.61; 95% CI (0.05, 0.74)), at two months (SMD = 0.60; 95% CI (0.4, 1.07)) and six months (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI (0.27, 0.51)). No significant differences were observed between stigma and improving help-seeking. Mental health literacy interventions are effective in augmenting mental health knowledge, but not in reducing stigma or improving help-seeking behavior.

Related collections

Most cited references 34

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2025)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 15485 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Jos I. M. Egger, G D Smith, M. Schneider … (1997)

0 comments Cited 7381 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Julian P T Higgins, Simon G Thompson (2002)

The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.