ArticleBMJ open2020
Public health programmes to promote mental health in young people: a systematic integrative review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- An integrative systematic review on interventions to improve layperson's ability to identify trustworthy digital health information.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- An integrative review protocol on interventions to improve users' ability to identify trustworthy online health information.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn light of the ever-growing mental health disease burden among young people worldwide, we aim to systematically review the global literature to identify the public health programmes targeted at promoting mental health and well-being in young people, the reported/anticipated mental health-related outcomes of the implemented public health programmes and the reported facilitators and barriers in relation to the implementation of those public health programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive literature search will be carried out in the following electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, ASSIA, Web of Science, Global Health, AMED, Health Source and The Cochrane Library. Further, a manual search of the reference lists of eligible studies and reviews will be carried out. The search strategy will include combinations of three key blocks of terms, namely: 'young people', 'mental health' and 'public health programme', using database-specific subject headings and text words. Two reviewers will independently screen, assess data quality and extract data for synthesis. Disagreements at any stage will be resolved by consensus with the involvement of a third reviewer. Given the anticipated methodological pluralism of the potential eligible studies, we will provide a narrative synthesis of the findings on public health programmes aimed at promoting the mental health and well-being of young people according to identified thematic areas. Furthermore, a narrative synthesis of the reported facilitators and barriers in relation to the implementation of public health programmes will be provided. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Given that the review findings will be focused on understanding the breadth and depth of the global research into public health programmes to promote mental health in young people with a particular emphasis on the facilitators and barriers of programmatic implementation, the findings will be of great value to inform future interventions, programmes and approaches to promote mental health and well-being of young people worldwide. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018099551.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.