Julia Dray

Improving adolescent mental health and resilience through a resilience-based intervention in schools: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundResearch investigating the effectiveness of universal interventions to reduce the risk of mental health problems remains limited. Schools are a promising setting within which adolescents can receive interventions aimed at promoting their mental health. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a resilience-based prevention-focused intervention in reducing the risk of mental health problems among adolescents attending secondary school in socio-economically disadvantaged areas.Methods/designA cluster randomised control trial will be conducted, with schools as the unit of randomisation. Initially, 32 secondary schools will be randomly allocated to a control or intervention group (12 control and 20 intervention). An intervention focused on improving student internal and external resilience factors will be implemented in intervention schools. A survey of students in Grade 7 in both intervention and control schools will be conducted (baseline) and repeated three years later when the students are in Grade 10. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire will be used to measure the risk of mental health problems. At follow-up, the risk of mental health problems will be compared between Grade 10 students in intervention and control schools to determine intervention effectiveness.DiscussionThe study presents an opportunity to determine the effectiveness of a comprehensive resilience-based intervention in reducing the risk of mental health problems in adolescents attending secondary schools. The outcomes of the trial are of importance to youth, schools, mental health clinicians and policymakers.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000606987, registered 14 June 2011.

Systematic Review of Universal Resilience-Focused Interventions Targeting Child and Adolescent Mental Health in the School Setting

OBJECTIVE To examine the effect of universal, school-based, resilience-focused interventions on mental health problems in children and adolescents. METHOD Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of universal, school-based interventions that included strategies to strengthen a minimum of 3 internal resilience protective factors, and included an outcome measure of mental health problems in children and adolescents aged 5 to 18 years. Six databases were searched from 1995 to 2015. Results were pooled in meta-analyses by mental health outcome (anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, hyperactivity, conduct problems, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and general psychological distress), for all trials (5-18 years). Subgroup analyses were conducted by age (child: 5-10 years; adolescent: 11-18 years), length of follow-up (short: post-≤12 months; long: >12 months), and gender (narrative). RESULTS A total of 57 included trials were identified from 5,984 records, with 49 contributing to meta-analyses. For all trials, resilience-focused interventions were effective relative to a control in reducing 4 of 7 outcomes: depressive symptoms, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and general psychological distress. For child trials (meta-analyses for 6 outcomes), interventions were effective for anxiety symptoms and general psychological distress. For adolescent trials (meta-analyses for 5 outcomes), interventions were effective for internalizing problems. For short-term follow-up, interventions were effective for 2 of 7 outcomes: depressive symptoms and anxiety symptoms. For long-term follow-up (meta-analyses for 5 outcomes), interventions were effective for internalizing problems. CONCLUSION The findings may suggest most promise for using universal resilience-focused interventions at least for short-term reductions in depressive and anxiety symptoms for children and adolescents, particularly if a cognitive-behavioral therapy-based approach is used. The limited number of trials providing data amenable for meta-analysis for some outcomes and subgroups, the variability of interventions, study quality, and bias mean that it is not possible to draw more specific conclusions. Identifying what intervention qualities (such as number and type of protective factor) achieve the greatest positive effect per mental health problem outcome remains an important area for future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL AND REGISTRATION Systematic Review of Universal Resilience Interventions Targeting Child and Adolescent Mental Health in the School Setting; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0172-6; PROSPERO CRD42015025908.

Association between adolescent tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use and individual and environmental resilience protective factors

Objectives Research suggests that individual and environmental resilience protective factors may be associated with adolescent substance use; however, the associations between a broad range of such factors and use of various types of substances have not been examined. The study aimed to determine the association between a comprehensive range of adolescent individual and environmental resilience protective factors and measures of tobacco, alcohol and illicit substance use. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting 32 Australian secondary schools. Participants Grade 7–10 students (aged 11–17 years). Measures Data regarding 14 student individual and environmental resilience protective factors and seven substance use measures (tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, other illicit drug use) were obtained via an online self-report survey. Adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses examined the association between all student resilience protective factors and seven substance use measures. Results Inverse univariate associations were found for 94 of 98 relationships examined (n=10 092). Multivariate analyses found: consistent inverse associations between 2 of 14 protective factors and all substance use measures (‘goals and aspirations’, ‘prosocial peers’); inverse associations between 4 protective factors with multiple substance use measures (‘home support’ (5 of 7), ‘school support’ (3 of 7), ‘self-awareness’ (2 of 7), ‘community meaningful participation’ (2 of 7)); positive associations between 2 resilience protective factors with multiple measures of substance use (‘community support’ (3 of 7), ‘peer caring relationships’ (5 of 7)) and 6 protective factors not to be associated with any substance use measure. Conclusions Despite individual relationships between the majority of resilience protective factors and substance use types, the protective benefit of such factors for adolescent substance use was limited to only a small number of such factors when considered collectively. Such results suggest that interventions seeking to reduce adolescent substance use may need to target specific protective factors to address specific types of substance use. Trial registration number ACTRN12611000606987, Results.

Systematic review of universal school-based resilience interventions targeting adolescent tobacco, alcohol or illicit drug use: review protocol.

Introduction Tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use contribute significantly to global rates of morbidity and mortality. Despite evidence suggesting interventions designed to increase adolescent resilience may represent a means of reducing adolescent substance use, and schools providing a key opportunity to implement such interventions, existing systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of school-based interventions targeting adolescent substance use have not examined this potential. Methods and analysis The aim of the systematic review is to determine whether universal interventions focused on enhancing the resilience of adolescents are effective in reducing adolescent substance use. Eligible studies will: include participants 5–18 years of age; report tobacco use, alcohol consumption or illicit drug use as outcomes; and implement a school-based intervention designed to promote internal (eg, self-esteem) and external (eg, school connectedness) resilience factors. Eligible study designs include randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised controlled trials, staggered enrolment trials, stepped wedged trials, quasi-randomised trials, quasi-experimental trials, time series/interrupted time-series trials, preference trials, regression discontinuity trials and natural experiment studies with a parallel control group. A search strategy including criteria for participants, study design, outcome, setting and intervention will be implemented in various electronic databases and information sources. Two reviewers will independently screen studies to assess eligibility, as well as extract data from, and assess risk of bias of included studies. A third reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. Attempts will be made to quantify trial effects by meta-analysis. Binary outcomes will be pooled and effect size reported using ORs. For continuous data, effect size of trials will be reported using a mean difference where trial outcomes report the same outcome using a consistent measure, or standardised mean difference where trials report a comparable measure. Otherwise, trial outcomes will be described narratively. Dissemination Review findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Effectiveness of a pragmatic school-based universal intervention targeting student resilience protective factors in reducing mental health problems in adolescents

Worldwide, 10-20% of adolescents experience mental health problems. Strategies aimed at strengthening resilience protective factors provide a potential approach for reducing mental health problems in adolescents. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a universal, school-based intervention targeting resilience protective factors in reducing mental health problems in adolescents. A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in 20 intervention and 12 control secondary schools located in socio-economically disadvantaged areas of NSW, Australia. Data were collected from 3115 students at baseline (Grade 7, 2011), of whom 2149 provided data at follow up (Grade 10, 2014; enrolments in Grades 7 to 10 typically aged 12-16 years; 50% male; 69.0% retention). There were no significant differences between groups at follow-up for three mental health outcomes: total SDQ, internalising problems, and prosocial behaviour. A small statistically significant difference in favour of the control group was found for externalising problems. Findings highlight the continued difficulties in developing effective, school-based prevention programs for mental health problems in adolescents. TRIAL REGISTRATION ANZCTR (Ref no: ACTRN12611000606987).

Effectiveness of a pragmatic school-based universal resilience intervention in reducing tobacco, alcohol and illicit substance use in a population of adolescents: cluster-randomised controlled trial

Objectives Initiation of tobacco, alcohol and illicit substance use typically occurs during adolescence, with the school setting recommended to reduce adolescent substance use. Strengthening individual (eg, problem solving) and environmental (eg, caring relationships at school) resilience protective factors of adolescents has been suggested as a strategy for reducing substance use by adolescents; however, few studies have examined this potential. A study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of a pragmatic school-based universal ‘resilience’ intervention in reducing the prevalence of tobacco, alcohol and illicit substance use, and increasing the individual and environmental protective factors of students. Design A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Setting Thirty-two Australian secondary schools (20 intervention; 12 control). Participants Cohort of grade 7 students followed-up in grade 10 (2014; aged 15–16 years). Intervention A pragmatic intervention involving school staff selection and implementation of available programmes and resources targeting individual and environmental ‘resilience’ protective factors for all grade 7–10 students was implemented in schools (2012–2014). School staff were provided implementation support. Measurements An online survey collected baseline and follow-up data for primary outcomes: tobacco (ever, recent) and alcohol (ever, recent, ‘risk’) use, and secondary outcomes: marijuana and other illicit substance use, and individual (six-factor subscales, aggregate) and environmental (three-factor subscales, aggregate) protective factor scores. Generalised and linear mixed models examined follow-up differences between groups. Results Follow-up data from 2105 students (intervention=1261; control=844; 69% of baseline cohort) were analysed. No significant differences were found between intervention and control students for any primary (ever tobacco: OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.68, p=0.14; recent tobacco: OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.31, p=0.19; recent ever alcohol: OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.48, p=0.46; alcohol: OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.62, p=0.51; ‘risk’ alcohol: OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36, p=0.89) or secondary outcomes (marijuana: OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68, p=0.57; other illicit substance: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.10, p=0.54; individual protective factors: MD=0, 95% CI −0.07 to 0.06, p=0.89; environmental protective factors: MD: −0.02, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.06, p=0.65). Conclusions The universally implemented pragmatic school-based intervention was not effective in reducing the prevalence of tobacco, alcohol or illicit substance use, or in increasing the protective factors of students. Trial registration Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register reference: ACTRN12611000606987

Increased Substance Use and Poorer Mental Health in Adolescents With Problematic Musculoskeletal Pain

• STUDY DESIGN: Cross‐sectional study. • BACKGROUND: Adolescents with musculoskeletal pain are thought to be at greater risk of modifiable health risk behaviors, but little is known about these behaviors in adolescents with problematic pain. • OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of substance use (tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, and illicit drugs) and poor mental health in adolescents with problematic musculoskeletal pain, compared to those without such pain. • METHODS: Data on self‐reported pain, substance use, and poor mental health were collected from 1831 year 9 students (age range, 14–16 years). Participants were considered to have problematic pain if they reported experiencing pain at least monthly over a 6‐month period that also required medication or impacted 1 or more of the following: school or work, daily activities, and leisure or sporting activities. • RESULTS: Almost half (46%) of the participants experienced problematic pain. Adolescents with problematic pain, compared to those without pain, reported higher substance use and poorer mental health: tobacco smoking in the last 4 weeks, 12% versus 7% (odds ratio [OR] = 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25, 2.28); alcohol consumption in the last 4 weeks, 30% versus 20% (OR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.34, 2.11); illicit drug use, 13% versus 6% (OR = 2.18; 95% CI: 1.55, 3.07); lower Mental Health Inventory scores (&bgr; = ‐11.43; standard error [SE], 0.96; P<.05), indicating poorer mental health; and higher Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire total scores (&bgr; = 3.67; SE, 0.29; P<.05), indicating greater difficulties. • CONCLUSION: Adolescents with problematic pain report higher smoking, alcohol use, and use of illicit drugs and poorer mental health than adolescents without problematic pain. The experience of problematic pain could be an important consideration for substance use and chronic disease prevention. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (reference number ACTRN12611000606987).

The association between adolescent condom use and individual and environmental resilience protective factors

Objective: Individual and environmental resilience protective factors are suggested to be associated with adolescent condom use; however, previous studies have not comprehensively examined such associations. This study aimed to determine the associations between condom use, and numerous individual and environmental resilience protective factors in sexually active Australian adolescents.

Systematic review of interventions to increase the provision of care for chronic disease risk behaviours in mental health settings: review protocol

BackgroundPeople with a mental illness experience a higher morbidity and mortality from chronic diseases relative to the general population. A higher prevalence of risk behaviours, including tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, harmful alcohol consumption and physical inactivity, is a substantial contributor to this health inequity. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that mental health services routinely provide care to their clients to address these risk behaviours. Such care may include the following elements: ask, assess, advise, assist and arrange (the ‘5As’), which has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing risk behaviours. Despite this potential, the provision of such care is reported to be low internationally and in Australia, and there is a need to identify effective strategies to increase care provision. The proposed review will examine the effectiveness of interventions which aimed to increase care provision (i.e. increase the proportion of clients receiving or clinicians providing the 5As) for the chronic disease risk behaviours of clients within the context of mental health service delivery.MethodsEligible studies will be any quantitative study designs with a comparison group and which report on the effectiveness of an intervention strategy (including delivery arrangements, financial arrangements, governance arrangements and implementation strategies) to increase care provision specifically for chronic disease risk behaviours (tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, harmful alcohol consumption and physical inactivity). Screening for studies will be conducted across seven electronic databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Two authors will independently screen studies for eligibility and extract data from included studies. Where studies are sufficiently homogenous, meta-analysis will be performed. Where considerable heterogeneity exists (I2 ≥ 75), narrative synthesis will be used.DiscussionThis review will be the first to synthesise evidence for the effectiveness of intervention approaches to facilitate care provision for chronic disease risk behaviours in the context of mental health service delivery. The results have the potential to inform the development of evidenced-based approaches to address the health inequities experienced by this population group.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017074360.

Differential intervention effectiveness of a universal school-based resilience intervention in reducing adolescent substance use within student subgroups: exploratory assessment within a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Objectives Interventions addressing the individual and environmental protective factors of adolescents are suggested to have potential for reducing adolescent substance use. While universally delivered school-based substance use prevention interventions are common, previous studies have suggested variable effectiveness by subgroups of students. An exploratory study was undertaken to examine the differential effectiveness of a universal school-based resilience intervention on adolescent substance use and protective factors according to their sociodemographic and previous substance use. Design Secondary analysis of data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Setting 32 Australian secondary schools. Participants Cohort of grade 7 students (n=3155) followed up in grade 10 (aged 15–16 years; 2014; n=2105). Intervention Three-year universal school-based intervention implemented by school staff that targeted a range of student resilience protective factors (2012–2014). Measurements Primary outcomes included: tobacco (recent, number of cigarettes) and alcohol (recent, ‘risk’ and number of drinks) use, and secondary outcomes included: marijuana (recent) and other illicit substance (recent) use, and aggregate individual and environmental protective factor scores. Generalised and linear mixed models examined interactions between treatment and student subgroups (gender; socioeconomic disadvantage (low/high); geographic location (major city/inner regional/outer regional-remote); and previous substance use (non-user/user)) at follow-up (36 models). Results Analysis of student follow-up data showed no differential intervention effect for any substance use or protective factor outcome for any subgroup, with the exception of one differential effect found by socioeconomic status for the outcome of mean number of cigarettes smoked by recent smokers (p=0.003). There was no evidence of an intervention effect within the low (mean difference (MD) −12.89, 95% CI −26.00 to 0.23) or high (MD 16.36, 95% CI −1.03 to 33.76) socioeconomic subgroups. Conclusions No evidence of an intervention effect on substance use and protective factors was found according to student subgroups defined by sociodemographic characteristics or previous substance use. Trial registration number ACTRN12611000606987.