ReviewCurrent opinion in psychology2026
Potential harm from universal school-based mental health interventions: Candidate mechanisms and future directions.
Review in Current opinion in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging machine learning to personalize depression treatment: A pre-registered study of 828 adults randomized to a digital single-session intervention or waitlist.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026Article
- Reducing Emotional Burden Carried by Neurodivergent Students in School: Perspectives From Students and School Staff.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Epidemiology of suicide among Austrian children and adolescents: 2015-2024.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Towards a neurobiology of early intervention: the importance of critical periods for preventive psychiatry and youth mental health.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- The role of schools in mental health promotion and prevention: a document analysis of Swedish local mental health policies.Health promotion international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Universal school-based mental health interventions involve lessons delivered to whole classes of young people irrespective of need, with the overall aim of improving mental health literacy, preventing mental health problems and/or reducing those that have already started. A number of high-quality trials show that universal interventions can have a range of negative effects, with participants in the intervention group experiencing worsening mental health or other negative outcomes. In this review, we summarise what we know so far about these negative effects, which we refer to as 'potential harm'. Two important questions remain poorly understood. First, the mechanisms driving potential harm are unknown, including whether negative effects are driven by reporting phenomena, the content of the intervention itself, or both. Second, individual differences in susceptibility to these effects is unclear. In the second half of the paper, we explore whether further universal trials should be run and argue that, if they are, the crucial issue of negative effects must be considered at all stages. In particular, we recommend that trials be designed in such a way to test mechanisms and individual differences in response. Information can then be provided to schools and policymakers about why young people might respond in different ways to an intervention, and how to support vulnerable students. Ultimately, this will lead to more effective and less harmful interventions for everyone.
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.