ArticleBMC public health2026
Strengthening adolescent well-being-controlled feasibility from two Swedish upper secondary schools.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPositive mental health refers to a state of well-being in which children and young people realize their own abilities, learn to cope with the everyday stresses of life, develop a positive sense of identity, learn to manage thoughts and emotions, build social relationships, and acquire education that fosters active citizenship. There is a need for a stronger evidence base regarding mental health promotion to address mental health issues in the young generation. To further help bridge this gap, this study compared and evaluated a universal health-promoting intervention facilitated by Student Health Care Teams (SHCTs) for Grade 12 students at two schools, and assessed its effects on students' self-reported well-being, resilience, strengths and difficulties, and mental health. Furthermore, the study aimed to qualitatively evaluate the intervention from students' and facilitators' perspectives.
methodThis non-randomized feasibility study used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (MRC), which exploratory compared pre- and post-outcomes between boys and girls, and qualitative, deductive content analysis to make sense of the data. Comparisons between the experimental (n = 44) and control groups (n = 41) were made in terms of several self-reported measurements: the WHO-5, a short and generic global rating scale, which measures psychological well-being as the primary outcome; the Resilience Scale (RS); strength, which is measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ); and mental health, which is measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Furthermore, there were nine focus group interviews (42 students in 5 groups; 10 SHCT members in 4 groups).
resultsControlling for pre-intervention values (WHO-5, RS, HADsA, HADsD, and SDQ), the intervention increased the OR scores of the girls above post-intervention values on the WHO-5 (OR = 9.0; 1.4-56). The intervention did not improve the OR of higher scores in boys during follow-up (OR = 0.1; 0.09-1.4). Students and SHCTs generally found the intervention feasible.
conclusionGirls appeared to benefit more from the intervention than boys, suggesting a need for gender-specific approaches. Despite time demands, school health teams valued the model for supporting interprofessional, school-based health promotion. However, larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.