↓ Skip to main content

Preventing depression and anxiety in young people: a review of the joint efficacy of universal, selective and indicated prevention

Overview of attention for article published in Psychological Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
257 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
386 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Preventing depression and anxiety in young people: a review of the joint efficacy of universal, selective and indicated prevention
Published in
Psychological Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1017/s0033291715001725
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. A. Stockings, L. Degenhardt, T. Dobbins, Y. Y. Lee, H. E. Erskine, H. A. Whiteford, G. Patton

Abstract

Depression and anxiety (internalizing disorders) are the largest contributors to the non-fatal health burden among young people. This is the first meta-analysis to examine the joint efficacy of universal, selective, and indicated preventive interventions upon both depression and anxiety among children and adolescents (5-18 years) while accounting for their co-morbidity. We conducted a systematic review of reviews in Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, from 1980 to August 2014. Multivariate meta-analysis examined the efficacy of preventive interventions on depression and anxiety outcomes separately, and the joint efficacy on both disorders combined. Meta-regressions examined heterogeneity of effect according to a range of study variables. Outcomes were relative risks (RR) for disorder, and standardized mean differences (Cohen's d) for symptoms. One hundred and forty-six randomized controlled trials (46 072 participants) evaluated universal (children with no identified risk, n = 54) selective (population subgroups of children who have an increased risk of developing internalizing disorders due to shared risk factors, n = 45) and indicated prevention (children with minimal but detectable symptoms of an internalizing disorder, n = 47), mostly using psychological-only strategies (n = 105). Reductions in internalizing disorder onset occurred up to 9 months post-intervention, whether universal [RR 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.60], selective (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.85) or indicated (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.78). Reductions in internalizing symptoms occurred up to 12 months post-intervention for universal prevention; however, reductions only occurred in the shorter term for selective and indicated prevention. Universal, selective and indicated prevention interventions are efficacious in reducing internalizing disorders and symptoms in the short term. They might be considered as repeated exposures in school settings across childhood and adolescence. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42014013990.).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 386 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 386 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 14%
Student > Master 50 13%
Researcher 39 10%
Student > Bachelor 38 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 8%
Other 61 16%
Unknown 114 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 141 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 8%
Social Sciences 26 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 4%
Neuroscience 7 2%
Other 34 9%
Unknown 131 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,377,163
of 25,708,267 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Medicine
#701
of 5,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,036
of 280,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Medicine
#13
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,708,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,470 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.