Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27225631›Full record

SynthesisPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2016

A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Universal and Indicated Preventive Technology-Delivered Interventions for Higher Education Students.

Colleen S Conley, Joseph A Durlak, Jenna B Shapiro, Alexandra C Kirsch, Evan Zahniser

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Colleen S ConleyLoyola University Chicago, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL, 60660, USA. cconley@luc.edu.
Joseph A DurlakLoyola University Chicago, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL, 60660, USA.
Jenna B ShapiroLoyola University Chicago, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL, 60660, USA.
Alexandra C KirschLoyola University Chicago, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL, 60660, USA.
Evan ZahniserLoyola University Chicago, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL, 60660, USA.
Loyola University Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The uses of technology-delivered mental health treatment options, such as interventions delivered via computer, smart phone, or other communication or information devices, as opposed to primarily face-to-face interventions, are proliferating. However, the literature is unclear about their effectiveness as preventive interventions for higher education students, a population for whom technology-delivered interventions (TDIs) might be particularly fitting and beneficial. This meta-analytic review examines technological mental health prevention programs targeting higher education students either without any presenting problems (universal prevention) or with mild to moderate subclinical problems (indicated prevention). A systematic literature search identified 22 universal and 26 indicated controlled interventions, both published and unpublished, involving 4763 college, graduate, or professional students. As hypothesized, the overall mean effect sizes (ESs) for both universal (0.19) and indicated interventions (0.37) were statistically significant and differed significantly from each other favoring indicated interventions. Skill-training interventions, both universal (0.21) and indicated (0.31), were significant, whereas non-skill-training interventions were only significant among indicated (0.25) programs. For indicated interventions, better outcomes were obtained in those cases in which participants had access to support during the course of the intervention, either in person or through technology (e.g., email, online contact). The positive findings for both universal and indicated prevention are qualified by limitations of the current literature. To improve experimental rigor, future research should provide detailed information on the level of achieved implementation, describe participant characteristics and intervention content, explore the impact of potential moderators and mechanisms of success, collect post-intervention and follow-up data regardless of intervention completion, and use analysis strategies that allow for inclusion of cases with partially missing data.

Indexed as

Mental HealthTelecommunicationsUniversitiesFemaleHumansMalePreventive MedicineStudentsHigher educationMental healthMeta-analysisPreventionTechnology

Identifiers

PMID27225631
OpenAlexW2401775412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.