Trial reportAmerican journal of health promotion : AJHP2024
Evaluating the Impact of Aevidum on Mental Health Knowledge, Attitudes, and Help-Seeking Behaviors in High School Students: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Trial report in American journal of health promotion : AJHP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization, awareness, and satisfaction with school counselors in Nagoya, Japan: repeated cross-sectional observational surveys.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2026Article
- The adolescent health network: A unique approach to sustained adolescent stakeholder engagement.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
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
Abstract
purposeTo compare Aevidum's school mental health curriculum vs the curriculum plus Aevidum clubs in a mixed-methods study including pre/post surveys, a randomized clinical trial, and qualitative interviews.
designConcurrent mixed-methods: Aim 1) pre-post surveys evaluated curriculum only vs curriculum plus club schools separately regarding changes in knowledge, help-seeking, and school culture; Aim 2) randomized clinical trial compared curriculum only to curriculum plus club schools; Aim 3) qualitative school staff interviews enhanced understanding of school culture changes.
settingCurriculum delivered to 9th graders at ten Pennsylvania high schools; 5 schools randomized to start clubs. SUBJECTS: Students (surveys), staff (interviews).
interventionAevidum curriculum plus/minus club. MEASURES: Aim 1, mixed effects linear and logistic regression models for longitudinal data were used to analyze survey items at each time point. Aim 2, the same regression models were used, except models included a fixed-effect for group and group by time interaction effect. Aim 3, interviews were transcribed; a codebook was developed followed by thematic analysis.
resultsPre-survey 2557 respondents; 49% female, 86% non-Hispanic white. Post-survey 737 (29% response rate). Aim 1, pre-post (Likert responses, larger numbers favorable) demonstrated increased student knowledge to identify depression (4.26 [4.19-4.33] to 4.59 [4.47-4.71],
conclusionsAevidum's curriculum improved mental health knowledge and help-seeking; adding the club did not significantly change responses. Staff identified positive school culture impacts. Limitations include the lower post-survey response.
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.