Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39937398›Full record

ReviewPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2025

Exploring the Moderating Effect of Control Group Type on Intervention Effectiveness in School-Based Anxiety and Depression Prevention: Findings from a Rapid Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Deborah M Caldwell, Jennifer C Palmer, Katie E Webster, Sarah R Davies, Hugo Hughes, Joseph Rona, Rachel Churchill, Sarah E Hetrick, Nicky J Welton

Abstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

9 authors.

Deborah M CaldwellPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. d.m.caldwell@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8014-7480
Jennifer C PalmerPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Katie E WebsterPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Sarah R DaviesPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Hugo HughesSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2HQ, UK.
Joseph RonaSchool of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2HQ, UK.
Rachel ChurchillCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Sarah E HetrickFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Psychological Medicine, University of Auckland, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand.
Nicky J WeltonPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many randomized controlled trials have investigated the role of school-based prevention interventions to reduce symptoms of anxiety and depression in young people. Systematic reviews have subsequently demonstrated a small, beneficial effect of these interventions when compared to a combined control group including usual care, no intervention, or waiting list controls. However, evidence from behavioral science and clinical psychology suggests control group choice may influence the relative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions. Here we explored whether separating this combined control group into distinct categories might influence the apparent effectiveness of preventive interventions. After updating an earlier review and network meta-analysis of preventive interventions for anxiety and depression in young people, we considered the impact of alternative control groups on estimates of effectiveness. This analysis was restricted to comparisons with cognitive-behavioral interventions only-the most common intervention used in the included studies. In targeted populations, for both anxiety and depression outcomes, the effect of a cognitive-behavioral intervention was larger when compared to waiting list controls than to usual curriculum, no intervention, or attention controls. For anxiety, the effect of no intervention was also considerably larger than waiting list control (standardized mean difference -0.37 [95% credible interval - 0.66, - 0.11], favoring no intervention). These results suggest that the beneficial effect of preventive school-based interventions previously observed in standard meta-analyses may be an artifact of combining control groups. Although exploratory, these findings indicate the impact of different control groups may vary considerably and should be taken into account when interpreting the effectiveness of interventions.

Indexed as

AnxietyControl GroupsDepressionSchool Health ServicesCognitive Behavioral TherapyHumansSchoolsAdolescenceAnxietyChildComparatorControl groupDepressionMental healthModerationNetwork meta-analysisSchool

Identifiers

PMID39937398
PMCPMC11891107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.