Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Frontiers in Psychiatry logoLink to Frontiers in Psychiatry
. 2025 May 19;16:1594658. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1594658

School-based interventions for resilience in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Chenyi Cai 1,†, Zhengyang Mei 1,†, Zirui Wang 2, Shi Luo 1,*
PMCID: PMC12127306  PMID: 40458775

Abstract

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the overall efficacy of school-based interventions (SBIs) in promoting resilience in children and adolescents and to provide evidence for advancing mental health care for children and adolescents.

Methods

A search was conducted in seven electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, Scopus, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used for the quality appraisal. The standardized mean difference (SMD; Cohen’s d) combined with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to pool the effect sizes.

Results

A total of 38 RCTs involving 15,730 participants were included in the systematic review, 21 of which were selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis. In terms of quality appraisal, the included trials were classified as having low risk, some concerns, or high risk, with proportions of 5.2%, 71.1%, and 23.7%, respectively. The pairwise meta-analyses indicated that SBIs significantly enhanced resilience in children and adolescents compared to the control group (SMD = 0.17, 95% Cl 0.06–0.29, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

SBIs have a positive effect on the resilience of children and adolescents. In the context of limited medical resources, SBIs could serve as a promising approach to promote the ability of children and adolescents to adapt to stressors. Given the considerable heterogeneity identified, SBIs should be personalized on the basis of variations in demographic characteristics, intervention implementation, and actual dose-response to improve the overall well-being of children and adolescents and reduce the risk of maladaptive psychological and behavioral responses.

Keywords: school-based interventions, resilience, children, adolescents, mental health

1. Introduction

Resilience refers to an individual’s ability to cope and recover effectively in the face of setbacks and adversity and maintain normal physiological function and psychological health (1, 2). Resilience is a dynamic process for adapting to stressful situations, characterized by continuous development over time (3–5). The level of resilience is a crucial indicator for assessing an individual’s physical and mental development in response to stressors (6). Children and adolescents are in a critical stage of physical and mental development, making them susceptible to stressors from family, school, and peers, including parental divorce (7), academic pressure (8), teacher-student relationships (9), and school bullying (10, 11). Resilience can effectively help them overcome stressful situations, maintain psychological balance, and promote their positive development. According to the American Medical Association, approximately 293 million children and adolescents worldwide suffer from at least one mental disorder, such as anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia (12). To address this challenge, developing resilience is considered a promising approach (2, 13, 14). Evidence suggests that children and adolescents with higher resilience levels tend to respond positively to stressful situations by adopting adaptive coping strategies. This helps them reduce the risk of developing negative emotions such as anxiety and depression and promotes their overall mental health and welfare (15–17). By contrast, children and adolescents with lower resilience levels are more likely to exhibit problem behaviors, including smartphone addiction (18), violent tendencies (19), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (20), illicit drug use, and smoking and alcohol abuse (21). The findings suggest that resilience, as an important psychological resource, can effectively reduce the negative impact of stressors on the growth process of children and adolescents, thereby promoting their physical and mental health development and enhancing their ability to adapt to and cope with stressful situations.

Interventions to promote resilience have been developed in a variety of settings to reduce mental health problems in children and adolescents, including families (22), communities (23), and hospitals (24). Family-based interventions aimed to improve family cohesion by strengthening positive communication between students and parents, thereby enhancing students’ resilience and reducing the occurrence of mental health disorders and issues during adolescence (22). Community-based interventions aimed to improve family economic conditions and provide children and adolescents with a stronger social support network, thereby promoting the development of their resilience (23). Hospital-based interventions aimed at helping patients build resilience through the care provided by healthcare professionals, enabling them to cope more effectively with stressors (25). However, interventions implemented in these environments may struggle to reach every child and adolescent. In this context, one of the most powerful tools for addressing the inequality in access to interventions is the implementation of school-based interventions (SBIs) to promote the physical and mental health of children and adolescents. SBIs are defined as any program, intervention, or strategy applied within the school environment aimed at regulating and improving students’ emotional, behavioral, or social functioning (26). To our knowledge, five systematic reviews or meta-analyses have examined the effectiveness of resilience programs on the mental health of children or adolescents (13, 14, 27–29). In terms of improving resilience, four studies reported effect sizes ranging from 0.23 to 0.58, while one study did not address this outcome (13). However, these studies have certain limitations. For example, three studies had incomplete search strategies regarding interventions or outcomes (14, 28, 29), and two studies included mixed populations (27, 28). Notably, only one study focused on interventions implemented in school environments (29), which means that the effectiveness of SBIs in improving resilience in children and adolescents still lacks high-quality evidence. The school system possesses sufficient foundational conditions to identify mental health issues effectively in children and adolescents and provide timely onsite interventions (30, 31). Specifically, this system can effectively identify early signs of mental health issues in children and adolescents by implementing universally applicable policies, ensuring access to high-quality educators, and establishing school-based clinics (32). Effective identification is made possible through strong collaboration among healthcare professionals, educators, and school administrators, enabling prompt interventions when these early warning signs emerge. In this way, SBIs not only help alleviate emotional and behavioral disorders in children and adolescents but also ensure that students who have difficulty accessing mental health care receive attention and support (26). Therefore, SBIs play an important role and significance in fostering resilience in children and adolescents.

The protective possibilities framework of resilience suggests that SBIs can promote students’ resilience by providing opportunities for development, as well as emotional, motivational, and strategic support (33). Key elements within the school environment—including teacher behaviors and support in the classroom, peer relationships, and family support and expectations—collectively form a supportive ecosystem that helps students better cope with challenges and stress, thereby enhancing their resilience. Over the past two decades, a series of studies have confirmed the significant efficacy of SBIs in promoting resilience in children and adolescents. For example, a program to support students exposed to trauma was proposed by Amin et al. (34), which includes 10 structured sessions designed to promote resilience by reducing students’ posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (34). On the basis of the P-A-G-E framework, Cheng et al. (35) proposed the Digital Netizen Alliance program to increase students’ positive coping ability and resilience through the development of positive mental skills (35). Khalsa et al. (36) proposed a yoga program implemented within the school environment, which effectively improved students’ resilience by promoting mindfulness and developing cognitive skills related to self-awareness (36). However, evidence for SBIs in this field is not consistent, with some studies indicating that these interventions have not demonstrated significant efficacy in promoting resilience in children and adolescents (37, 38). In addition, previous studies have indicated that the efficacy of SBIs for children and adolescents may vary depending on population characteristics and intervention implementation. Differences in cognitive abilities, emotional needs, and brain development at various stages of childhood and adolescence may lead to different dose-response relationships in intervention implementation (39). Similarly, factors such as age, cultural background, and socioeconomic status may also contribute to variations in resilience levels (40, 41). Therefore, it is essential to investigate the differential efficacy of interventions based on variations in population characteristics and intervention implementation through moderator analyses. This approach enables the customization of SBIs to accommodate these variations, ensuring more tailored and effective adjustments. In summary, although SBIs can promote the development of resilience in children and adolescents to some extent, the overall efficacy of these interventions in this regard still lacks consistency. For children and adolescents exposed to many stressors, fostering resilience helps them cope positively with stressful situations and enhances their overall well-being (42). Given this, it is necessary to review previous evidence to examine the overall efficacy of SBIs on resilience in children and adolescents. The methodologies used in published related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) vary, resulting in differences in the effect sizes of SBIs on resilience in children and adolescents. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the overall efficacy of SBIs in promoting resilience in children and adolescents and to provide evidence for advancing mental health care for children and adolescents.

2. Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines (43) and has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number: CRD420251009149.

2.1. Search methods

A search was conducted in six electronic databases via Medical Subject Headings and free-text terms: PubMed, Embase, EBSCOhost, Scopus, Web of Science, and APA PsycINFO. In addition, relevant references were manually searched on Google Scholar. The search period ranged from the creation of each database to January 2025. Notably, the included studies must be published in English and have been peer-reviewed. Grey literature is excluded from the literature search, as it may lack rigorous peer review and standardized reporting. The search methods followed the PICOS principles: (P) Population—children or adolescents (age range: 6—19 years); (I) Intervention—school-based interventions (e.g., classroom-based social and emotional learning program, school-based resilience intervention program, school-based emotion regulation program, school-based mindfulness training); (C) Comparator—control groups receiving routine education, wait-list, no-intervention, or active control; (O) Outcome—any assessment for resilience, including trials where it was a primary or secondary outcome; (S) Study design—all types of randomized controlled trials. The search methods of PubMed are presented in Table 1 . The complete search methods for all electronic databases are detailed in Supplementary material Table 1 .

Table 1.

PubMed search strategy.

#1 Resilience[MeSH Terms] OR Resilience[Title/Abstract] OR Resilien*[Title/Abstract]
#2 Intervention*[Title/Abstract] OR Program*[Title/Abstract] OR School intervention*[Title/Abstract] OR School-based*[Title/Abstract] OR School*[Title/Abstract] OR College*[Title/Abstract] OR Universit*[Title/Abstract] OR Campus*[Title/Abstract] OR Classroom*[Title/Abstract] Curricul*[Title/Abstract] OR Educat*[Title/Abstract]
#3 Adolescen*[Title/Abstract] OR Teen*[Title/Abstract] Youth*[Title/Abstract] OR Juven*[Title/Abstract] OR Child*[Title/Abstract] OR Minor*[Title/Abstract] OR Kid[Title/Abstract] OR Kids[Title/Abstract] OR Pediatric*[Title/Abstract] OR Paediatric*[Title/Abstract] OR Pupil*[Title/Abstract] OR Toddler*[Title/Abstract] OR School-age*[Title/Abstract] OR Schoolage*[Title/Abstract]
#4 Randomized controlled trial[Publication Type] OR Randomized[Title/Abstract] OR Placebo[Title/Abstract]
#5 #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4
Open in a new tab

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 2 .

Table 2.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Category Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Population Children or adolescents (age range: 6—19 years) Not children or adolescents
Intervention School-based interventions (e.g., classroom-based social and emotional learning program, school-based resilience intervention program, school-based emotion regulation program, school-based mindfulness training) Not interventions based on school
Comparator Control group receiving routine education, wait-list, no-intervention, or active control No exclusion criteria
Outcome Any assessment for resilience, including trials where it was a primary or secondary outcome No exclusion criteria
Study design All types of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) Non-randomized controlled trials, such as quasi experiments, observational studies, case reports, study protocols, conference
proceedings, review, etc
Open in a new tab

2.3. Study selection and data extraction

The study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers (CYC and ZYM). Following the literature search, all records that fulfilled the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were imported into EndNote 20.6, with duplicates removed. The titles, abstracts, and full texts of the remaining records were independently screened by two researchers. The extracted data included (a) basic information, including the first author, country, and year of publication; (b) participant characteristics, including the type and risk profile of population, mean age (standard deviation), sample size, and percentage of males; (c) details of the interventions and controls; and (d) outcome and measure. Any disagreements arising during the study selection and data extraction processes were addressed through consultation with the corresponding author (SL).

2.4. Quality appraisal

The quality appraisal was performed by two independent researchers (CYC and ZYM) via the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) (44). The RoB 2 examined included studies for potential sources of bias, including the randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, mising outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. The quality of the included studies was categorized into three levels: low risk, some concerns, and high risk. Any disagreements arising during the quality appraisal process were addressed through consultation with the corresponding author (SL).

2.5. Data synthesis

Given the variations in scales employed in different RCTs and given that the outcome in this study was a continuous variable, the standardized mean difference (SMD; Cohen’s d) combined with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to pool the effect sizes (45). The differences in efficacy between the experimental and control groups were compared via forest plots, and heterogeneity of the pooled results was evaluated via the chi-square test, which is based on the Q test and I2 statistic (46). When significant heterogeneity was observed (I2 > 50%, p < 0.10), a random-effects model with the DerSimonian-Laird method was employed to pool the effect sizes. In the absence of significant heterogeneity (I2 < 50%, p > 0.10), a fixed-effects model with the inverse variance method was employed to pool the effect sizes (45). The sources of heterogeneity in the pooled results were explored through meta-regression (for continuous variables) and subgroup analysis (for categorical variables) (47, 48). After studies at high risk were excluded, a sensitivity analysis was performed via a stepwise elimination method to evaluate the robustness of the pooled results (45). Publication bias was assessed based on a visual inspection of the funnel plot and Egger’s test (49, 50). The trim-and-fill method was used to further evaluate the robustness of the pooled results in the presence of significant publication bias (51). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines were used for the certainty of evidence in the following areas: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias (52). All data syntheses were conducted using Stata 18.0.

3. Results

3.1. Search outcomes

Seven electronic databases were searched, yielding a total of 4,653 records. A systematic identification and manual screening process removed 2,510 duplicates, leaving 2,143 records. A total of 1,411 records were excluded on the basis of titles and abstracts, and 695 records were excluded on the basis of full-text review. Thirty-eight studies were included in the systematic review, with twenty-one studies included in the meta-analysis. Seventeen studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to a lack of available data (34–38, 53–85) (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flow diagram.

3.2. Study characteristics

The included studies were published between 2008 and 2024. These studies were conducted in the United States (n = 10), China (n = 9), Australia (n = 4), Pakistan (n = 2), India (n = 2), and one study each in the United Kingdom, Colombia, Belgium, Italy, Iran, South Korea, Sweden, the Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, and Finland. In terms of population characteristics, 26 studies focused on adolescents, 8 studies focused on children, and the remaining 4 studies included mixed populations. In terms of the risk profile of population, participants in 14 studies came from high-risk groups, which may face additional challenges and difficulties in various aspects, such as lower socioeconomic status, physical and mental health issues, or identities as minority and marginalized groups. The remaining 24 studies involved participants who did not belong to high-risk groups. The experimental group consisted of 8,869 participants, ranging in age from 9.50 to 17.10 years. The control group included a total of 6,861 participants, ranging in age from 9.70 to 17.30 years. In terms of the delivery method of interventions, 36 studies used a group intervention model, while 2 studies employed an individual intervention model. Furthermore, 18 studies employed treatment-as-usual controls, 11 utilized wait-list controls, 6 incorporated no-intervention controls, and 3 applied positive controls (see Table 3 ).

Table 3.

Main characteristics of included randomized controlled trials.

Study ID Country Population Age (Mean (SD)) Total/M% Intervention Comparator Measurement
Type High-risk Strategy Delivery method
Amin et al. (34) Pakistan Children Yes T: 11.29 (1.48)
C: 11.57 (1.41)		 T: 38/73.7%
C: 37/56.8%		 Support for students exposed to Trauma program Group No-intervention CYRM-28
Bogaert et al. (37) Belgium Adolescents No T: 13.20 (1.00)
C: 13.30 (1.08)		 T: 95/25.3%
C: 93/22.6%		 Positive events training Group Positive control CD-RISC-10
Chen et al. (53) Australia Children No T+C: 10.08 (1.21) T: 129/NR
C: 57/NR		 Emotion regulation Group Treatment as usual CYRM-12
Cheng et al. (35) China Children No T: 10.86 (1.20)
C: 10.79 (1.17)		 T: 137/NR
C: 127/NR		 Multicomponent positive psychology program Individual Wait-list CYRM-12
Chisholm et al. (54) UK Adolescents No T+C: 12.21 (0.58) T: 354/48.3%
C: 303/47.5%		 Education plus contact Group Treatment as usual RS-15
Felver et al. (55) USA Adolescents Yes T: 16.15 (0.90)
C: 16.74 (1.17)		 T: 16/31.0%
C: 11/34.0%		 School-based mindfulness intervention Group Treatment as usual SEARS-SF
Gance-Cleveland and Mays (56) USA Adolescents Yes T: 15.45 (1.24)
C: 15.16 (1.14)		 T: 49/26.5%
C: 42/52.4%		 School-based Support Groups Group Wait-list HDLF-Y
Gao et al. (57) China Adolescents No T: NR
C: NR		 T: 84/53.6%
C: 83/45.8%		 Positive education intervention based on the PERMA Group Treatment as usual CD-RISC-25
Gomez-Restrepo et al. (58) Colombia Adolescents Yes T: 14.62 (2.04)
C: 14.85 (2.39)		 T: 50/36.0%
C: 20/65.0%		 Digital app-supported and evidence-based intervention Group Treatment as usual CD-RISC-25
Greco et al. (59) Italy Adolescents No T: 14.50 (0.70)
C: 14.60 (0.70)		 T: 48/50.0%
C: 50/50.0%		 Karate-based intervention program Group Wait-list CYRM-28
Green et al. (60) USA Adolescents No T: 12.30 (NR)
C: 12.40 (NR)		 T: 188/67.2%
C: 177/64.2%		 Classroom-based social and emotional learning program Group Treatment as usual RSCA
Green et al. (61) USA Children Yes T: 9.50 (NR)
C: 9.70 (NR)		 T: 47/55.3%
C: 47/51.1%		 Classroom-based social and emotional learning program Group Treatment as usual RSCA
Green et al. (62) USA Adolescents No T+C: 15.7 (NR) T+C: 372/48.0% Classroom-based social and emotional learning program Group Treatment as usual RSCA
Hatamizadeh et al. (63) Iran Adolescents Yes T: NR
C: NR		 T: 61/52.5%
C: 61/68.9%		 School-based resilience intervention program Group Treatment as usual CD-RISC-25
Ho et al. (64) China Adolescents No T: 12.32 (0.76)
C: 12.26 (0.75)		 T: 333/42.6%
C: 331/41.1%		 Positive youth development-based sports mentorship program Group Positive control CD-RISC-25
Huang et al. (65) China Children No T: 9.90 (0.54)
C: 9.96 (0.54)		 T: 391/56.3%
C: 384/52.1%		 Resilience-focused intervention Group Wait-list RSCA
Hyun et al. (66) Korea Adolescents Yes T: 12.60 (0.51)
C: 12.47 (0.52)		 T: 17/100.0%
C: 17/100.0%		 School-based cognitive-behavioral therapy Group Wait-list KARS
Irfan Arif and Mirza (67) Pakistan Adolescents Yes T: NR
C: NR		 T: 32/100.0%
C: 32/100.0%		 Programme based on a resilience building module for teachers Group Treatment as usual RAS
Johnstone et al. (68) Australia Children No T+C: 11.04 (1.40) T: 185/NR
C: 25/NR		 School-based emotion regulation program Group Treatment as usual CYRM‐12
Jones and Destin (69) USA Adolescents No T: NR
C: NR		 T + C: 350/57.0% Expressive writing exercises Group Treatment as usual Self-reported measure
Khalsa et al. (36) USA Adolescents No T: 16.80 (0.60)
C: 16.90 (0.80)		 T: 74/54.1%
C: 47/63.8%		 Yoga sessions based upon the Yoga Ed program Group Treatment as usual RS-25
Laundy et al. (70) Sweden Children Yes T: 11.70 (1.63)
C: 11.20 (1.96)		 T: 22/36.4%
C: 12/25.0%		 Training for mindfulness and resilience Group Positive control RS-10
Leventhal et al. (71) India Adolescents Yes T: 13.01 (1.16)
C: 12.94 (1.18)		 T: 1730/0.0%
C: 737/0.0%		 Resilience-based program Group No-intervention CD-RISC-10
Li et al. (72) China Adolescents No T: 14.07 (0.51)
C: 13.80 (0.56)		 T: 38/39.5%
C: 38/39.5%		 Group counseling using the Achieving Success Everyday model Group No-intervention RSCA-27
Liu et al. (73) China Adolescents No T: 15.86 (0.55)
C: 15.92 (0.38)		 T: 57/40.4%
C: 60/43.3%		 School-based mindfulness training Group No-intervention RSCA-27
Llistosella et al. (74) Spain Adolescents Yes T: NR
C: NR		 T: 255/52.5%
C: 323/53.6		 School-based resilience intervention Group Wait-list CYRM-32
Mertens et al. (75) Netherlands Adolescents No T: 12.35 (0.61)
C: 12.47 (0.64)		 T: 925/49.9%
C: 374/53.2%		 Rock and Water lessons Group Treatment as usual CD-RISC-3
Moore et al. (76) Australia Adolescents No T+C: 12.76 (0.68) T+C: 283/48.0% Martial arts-based psychosocial interventions Group Wait-list CYRM-28
Moran et al. (77) China Adolescents No T: 11.60 (0.52)
C: 11.60 (0.53)		 T: 160/58.8%
C: 70/48.6%		 School-based health coaching intervention with a mindfulness component Individual No-intervention CYRM-17
Niu et al. (38) China Adolescents Yes T: NR
C: NR		 T: 28/NR
C: 28/NR		 Culturally-attuned resilience intervention Group Treatment as usual CD-RISC-25
Noggle et al. (78) USA Adolescents No T: 17.10 (0.60)
C: 17.30 (0.80)		 T: 36/39.0%
C: 15/53.0%		 Kripalu-based yoga program Group Treatment as usual RS-25
O'Connor et al. (79) Ireland Adolescents No T: 11.04 (0.68)
C: 11.09 (0.67)		 T: 262/40.5%
C: 342/40.1%		 Process-based cognitive-behavioral therapy Group Wait-list CD-RISC-10
Peter et al. (80) India Adolescents Yes T: 13.05 (0.67)
C: 13.10 (0.57)		 T: 33/45.5%
C: 32/50.0%		 Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy Group Wait-list BURS
Rice et al. (81) Australia Children and adolescents No T: NR
C: NR		 T: 89/NR
C: 28/NR		 Emotion regulation program Group Treatment as usual CYRM-12
Rich et al. (82) USA Children Yes T: 10.83 (0.59)
C: 10.82 (0.53)		 T: 82/65.9%
C: 87/63.2%		 Resilience builder program Group Wait-list RSCA-64
Seale et al. (83) USA Children and adolescents No T: 11.30 (0.90)
C: 11.50 (1.00)		 T: 343/43.4%
C: 200/46.3%		 Character-based resilience curriculum Group Wait-list CD-RISC-10
Tang et al. (84) China Children and adolescents No T: 12.27 (1.60)
C: 12.67 (1.71)		 T: 732/51.6%
C: 881/49.7%		 Peer education Group No-intervention RSCA-27
Volanen et al. (85) Finland Children and adolescents No T: NR
C: NR		 T: 1232/NR
C: 1202/NR		 Mindfulness-based interventions Group Treatment as usual RS-14
Open in a new tab

T, Test group; C, Control group; M%, Percentage of boys; CYRM, Child and Youth Resilience Measure; CD-RISC, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; RS, Resilience Scale; SEARS-SF, Social-Emotional Assets and Resilience Scales; HDLF-Y, Health and Daily Living Form for Youth; RSCA, Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents; KARS, Korean Adolescent Resilience Scale; RAS, Resilience Assessment Scale; BURS, Bharathiar University Resilience Scale.

3.3. Quality appraisal

The risk of bias ranged from low to high (see Figure 2 , Table 4 ). For the randomization process, 6 studies were assessed as having some concerns due to baseline differences, while the remaining studies as being of low risk. For the deviations from intended interventions, 24 studies were assessed as having some concerns due to the use of inappropriate analysis to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention, while the remaining studies as being of low risk. For the mising outcome data, 21 studies were assessed as having some concerns or high risk due to missing data for some participants and a lack of evidence that the result was not biased by missing outcome data, while the remaining studies as being of low risk. For the measurement of the outcome, 4 studies were assessed as having some concerns or high risk due to the method of measuring the outcome inappropriate, while the remaining studies as being of low risk. For the selection of the reported result, 20 studies were assessed as having some concerns or high risk due to multiple eligible outcome measurements within the outcome domain, while the remaining studies as being of low risk.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias summary.

Table 4.

Risk of bias summary for the included effect estimates.

Study ID D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Overall bias
Amin et al. (34) Some concerns Some concerns Low Low Low Some concerns
Bogaert et al. (37) Low Low Low Low Some concerns Some concerns
Chen et al. (53) Low Some concerns Some concerns Low High High
Cheng et al. (35) Low Some concerns Some concerns Low Low Some concerns
Chisholm et al. (54) Low Low Some concerns Low Low Some concerns
Felver et al. (55) Low Low High Some concerns Low High
Gance-Cleveland and Mays (56) Some concerns Low Low High Low High
Gao et al. (57) Low Some concerns Low Low Some concerns Some concerns
Gomez-Restrepo et al. (58) Low Some concerns Some concerns Low Low Some concerns
Greco et al. (59) Low Some concerns Low Low Low Some concerns
Green et al. (60) Low Some concerns Low Low Low Some concerns
Green et al. (61) Some concerns Some concerns Some concerns Low Low Some concerns
Green et al. (62) Some concerns Some concerns Some concerns Low Low Some concerns
Hatamizadeh et al. (63) Low Some concerns Low Low Some concerns Some concerns
Ho et al. (64) Low Low Low Low Low Low
Huang et al. (65) Low Low Low Low Some concerns Some concerns
Hyun et al. (66) Low Some concerns High Low Low High
Irfan Arif and Mirza (67) Low Some concerns Low Low Some concerns Some concerns
Johnstone et al. (68) Low Some concerns High Low Some concerns High
Jones and Destin (69) Low Some concerns Low Some concerns Some concerns Some concerns
Khalsa et al. (36) Low Some concerns Low Low Some concerns Some concerns
Laundy et al. (70) Low Some concerns High Low Some concerns High
Leventhal et al. (71) Low Some concerns Some concerns Low Some concerns Some concerns
Li et al. (72) Low Some concerns Low Low Some concerns Some concerns
Liu et al. (73) Low Some concerns Some concerns Low Low Some concerns
Llistosella et al. (74) Low Low Some concerns Low Some concerns Some concerns
Mertens et al. (75) Low Low Some concerns Low Some concerns Some concerns
Moore et al. (76) Low Low Some concerns Low Low Some concerns
Moran et al. (77) Low Low Some concerns Low Low Some concerns
Niu et al. (38) Low Some concerns Low Low Low Some concerns
Noggle et al. (78) Low Low Low Low Low Low
O'Connor et al. (79) Low Low Some concerns Low Some concerns Some concerns
Peter et al. (80) Some concerns Some concerns Low High Some concerns High
Rice et al. (81) Low Some concerns High Low Some concerns High
Rich et al. (82) Some concerns Some concerns Some concerns Low Some concerns Some concerns
Seale et al. (83) Low Low Some concerns Low High High
Tang et al. (84) Low Some concerns Low Low Low Some concerns
Volanen et al. (85) Low Low Some concerns Low Some concerns Some concerns
Open in a new tab

D1, Randomization process; D2, Deviations from intended interventions; D3, Mising outcome data; D4, Measurement of the outcome; D5, Selection of the reported result.

3.4. Pairwise meta-analyses

The pairwise meta-analyses included 21 RCTs with available data. Evidence for a small effect of SBIs on resilience in children and adolescents observed (SMD = 0.17, 95% Cl 0.06–0.29, p < 0.01), with considerable heterogeneity identified (I2 = 81.90%, Q = 110.47, p < 0.01). The corresponding forest plot for the pooled results is presented in Figure 3 .

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of the effects of school-based interventions on resilience.

3.5. Moderator analyses

Based on meta-regression to test the moderating effects, the results indicated that year of publication (p = 0.25), total sample size (p = 0.17), length of intervention (p = 0.76), frequency of intervention (p = 0.38), and duration of intervention (p = 0.59) did not moderate the overall efficacy of SBIs on resilience in children and adolescents. Based on subgroup analysis to test the moderating effects, the results indicated that the type of intervention groups exhibited significant differences in the pooled results (Qb (4) = 15.60, p < 0.01). In contrast, no significant differences were observed in the pooled results with respect to the type of control groups (Qb (3) = 3.64, p = 0.30), type of population (Qb (1) = 0.66, p = 0.42), risk profile of population (Qb (1) = 0.56, p = 0.45), and risk of bias (Qb (2) = 0.16, p = 0.92) (see Table 5 ).

Table 5.

Moderator analyses for resilience.

Continuous variables Studies β SE t p
Sociodemographic characteristics
Year of publication 20 0.03 0.02 1.19 0.25
Total sample sizes 20 -0.01 0.01 -1.46 0.17
Implementation parameters
Length of intervention 20 -0.01 0.02 -0.32 0.76
Frequency of intervention 20 -0.06 0.07 -0.91 0.38
Duration of intervention 20 0.01 0.01 0.55 0.59
Categorical variables Studies SMD [95% CI] p
Type of intervention groups
Sport-focused SBIs 5 0.41 [0.15, 0.67] < 0.01
Resilience-focused SBIs 4 0.09 [-0.08, 0.26] 0.32
Mindfulness-focused SBIs 4 0.57 [0.10, 1.04] 0.02
CBT-focused SBIs 2 -0.26 [-0.56, 0.05] 0.10
Other-component-focused SBIs 6 0.01 [-0.16, 0.17] 0.96
Test of group differences Qb (4) = 15.60 p < 0.01
Type of control groups
No-intervention 3 0.53 [0.07, 0.99] 0.03
Wait-list 8 0.12 [-0.11, 0.36] 0.30
Treatment as usual 8 0.07 [-0.09, 0.23] 0.38
Active control (excluding TAU) 2 0.17 [0.03, 0.30] 0.01
Test of group differences Qb (3) = 3.64 p = 0.30
Type of population
Children (6—12 years) 3 0.11 [-0.02, 0.25] 0.11
Adolescents (12—19 years) 18 0.19 [0.06, 0.32] < 0.01
Test of group differences Qb (1) = 0.66 p = 0.42
Risk profile of population
High-risk 5 0.06 [-0.29, 0.41] 0.75
Non high-risk 16 0.20 [0.08, 0.32] < 0.01
Test of group differences Qb (1) = 0.56 p = 0.45
Risk of bias
Low risk 3 0.19 [0.04, 0.33] 0.01
Some concerns 3 0.19 [0.06, 0.31] < 0.01
High risk 15 0.03 [-0.73, 0.79] 0.93
Test of group differences Qb (2) = 0.16 p = 0.92
Open in a new tab

TAU, Treatment as usual; β, Regression coefficient; SE, Standard error; SMD, Standardized mean difference; CI, Confidence interval; Q, Cochran’s Q statistic with p value; SBIs, School-based interventions; CBT, Cognitive-behavioral therapy.

3.6. Sensitivity analyses

After studies at high risk were excluded, sensitivity analyses were performed via a stepwise elimination method. The results indicated that of the pooled results remained consistent despite variations in study selection, suggesting that the overall efficacy of SBIs on resilience in children and adolescents was robust, with an effect size ranging from 0.14 to 0.21 (see Table 6 ).

Table 6.

Sensitivity analyses for outcomes by omitting individual studies.

Outcome Study omitted SMD 95% CI
Lower bound Upper bound
Resilience Bogaert et al. (37) 0.19 0.07 0.31
Cheng et al. (35) 0.18 0.06 0.30
Chisholm et al. (54) 0.21 0.08 0.33
Gomez-Restrepo et al. (58) 0.19 0.08 0.31
Greco et al. (59) 0.17 0.06 0.29
Ho et al. (64) 0.19 0.07 0.31
Huang et al. (65) 0.20 0.07 0.32
Khalsa et al. (36) 0.18 0.06 0.29
Liu et al. (73) 0.14 0.04 0.24
Llistosella et al. (74) 0.21 0.09 0.33
Mertens et al. (75) 0.21 0.10 0.32
Moore et al. (76) 0.14 0.04 0.25
Moran et al. (77) 0.17 0.06 0.29
Niu et al. (38) 0.18 0.06 0.30
Noggle et al. (78) 0.19 0.07 0.30
O'Connor et al. (79) 0.21 0.10 0.33
Tang et al. (84) 0.19 0.06 0.32
Volanen et al. (85) 0.20 0.07 0.33
Combined 0.18 0.06 0.29
Open in a new tab

SMD, Standardized mean difference; CI, Confidence interval.

3.7. Publication bias and certainty of evidence

Publication bias was assessed based on a visual inspection of the funnel plot and Egger’s test. The results indicated that the included studies were evenly distributed on both sides of the funnel plot (see Figure 4 ), with an Egger’s test p of 0.1292. This finding indicates that publication bias has no influence on this study, and there is no significant systematic association between effect sizes and standard errors. According to the GRADE ratings, the certainty of evidence for resilience was very low (see Table 7 ).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot of publication bias for resilience.

Table 7.

Certainty of evidence rating (GRADE).

GRADE criteria Rating Certainty of evidence
Risk of bias No downgrade. Only 23.7% high risk of bias. ⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very low
Inconsistency Downgrade by two levels due to considerable inconsistency identified (I2 = 81.90%).
Indirectness Downgrade by one level due to indirectness of participants and interventions.
Imprecision No concerns (SMD = 0.17, 95% Cl 0.06-0.29).
Publication bias No publication bias is suspected.
Open in a new tab

SMD, Standardized mean difference; CI, Confidence interval; I2 , Heterogeneity index in percentage.

4. Discussion

Children and adolescents often face various stressors as they grow up and may experience cognitive, emotional, and behavioral disorders, particularly when encountering trauma or adversity. Fostering resilience in children and adolescents helps them adapt positively and effectively cope with stressful situations, reducing the risk of maladaptive psychological and behavioral responses and thereby promoting the development of their physical and mental health (86). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the overall efficacy of SBIs in promoting resilience in children and adolescents and to provide evidence for advancing mental health care for children and adolescents. The pairwise meta-analyses indicated that SBIs significantly enhanced resilience in children and adolescents compared to the control group (SMD = 0.17, 95% Cl 0.06–0.29, p < 0.01). The certainty of evidence for resilience was very low on the basis of the GRADE ratings (52). This finding is supported by previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses (29, 87).

Globally, 10—20% of children and adolescents are experiencing mental health issues (88), and only a minority of these children and adolescents have access to medical-level care due to limited medical resources. These findings suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have important potential in addressing these challenges. Schools are environments that children and adolescents rely on for their development. Implementing interventions within the school environment can effectively reduce various barriers, including family financial burdens, caregiver burdens, transportation needs, and limited insurance coverage, without requiring significant additional time and human resources. More importantly, schools provide a familiar environment for students, along with support from teachers and peers, which is particularly important for promoting children’s and adolescents’ acceptance and adaptation to interventions (89–91). Furthermore, SBIs are especially crucial for children and adolescents from impoverished or minority communities, as they may be academically disadvantaged compared to children from non-poor or white families. Fostering resilience through SBIs provides these groups with higher-quality and more comprehensive educational experience, helping to prevent inequities in interventions caused by certain disparities (92).

In terms of pairwise meta-analyses, the pooled results indicated that SBIs significantly enhanced resilience in children and adolescents. The robustness of this finding was confirmed by sensitivity analyses, but it was accompanied by considerable heterogeneity. Although this study was unable to identify the sources of heterogeneity in the pooled results through meta-regression and subgroup analyses, this heterogeneity may reflect differences in population characteristics and intervention implementation. On the one hand, the differential efficacy of SBIs may be due to different health challenges or school environments experienced by children and adolescents. On the other hand, the specific processes, measures, and dosage of intervention implementation may also contribute to variations in efficacy. More importantly, the high heterogeneity may reveals a critical issue in the design of current interventions—namely, the lack of standardized procedures, theory-driven, and scalability. The absence of these elements not only limits the comparability and replicability of research findings, but also undermines the potential for SBIs to be effectively scaled and implemented in real educational settings. Researchers and practitioners should strive to develop clear intervention manuals and operational guidelines tailored to the specific conditions of each school, covering key elements such as goal setting, activity content, intervention arrangements, and required resources. The protective possibilities framework of resilience may hold promise in addressing this challenge (33). Future research could establish a unified intervention process and indicator system based on this framework, which would help ensure quality control in intervention implementation. In term of the scalability of SBIs, priority should be given to their cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and adaptability. Although the overall effect size of this study is small, its clinical efficacy may be influenced by population characteristics and intervention implementation. It is recommended to involve educational practitioners (e.g., teachers) during the intervention development stage to ensure that the intervention content aligns with students’ realities and provides implementation willingness and local adaptability. For children and adolescents facing multiple stressors, identifying promising and targeted interventions to enhance their resilience is particularly crucial. In light of this, the differential efficacy of SBIs should be further explored in enhancing resilience in children and adolescents, and identify the most effective SBI should be identified on the basis of the specific conditions of children and adolescents. This will help maximize the efficacy of SBIs in enhancing resilience in children and adolescents in the context of limited medical resources.

The findings of this study should be interpreted with consideration of its limitations. First, the outcome of this study focused only on resilience and did not address other potential outcomes similar to resilience, such as mental toughness and grittiness, although SBIs may have a homogenous effect on these outcomes. Second, this study primarily examined the overall efficacy of SBIs on resilience in children and adolescents and did not identify the most promising interventions. It is recommended that future research should build on existing evidence by conducting more high-quality RCTs and network meta-analyses to explore the differential efficacy of various SBIs in enhancing resilience in children and adolescents. Finally, although this study conducted moderator analyses, the results did not reveal potential sources of heterogeneity. Future research could explore the heterogeneity of the pooled results by incorporating more comprehensive information on demographic characteristics and intervention implementation. This helps further expand insights into the role of SBIs in enhancing resilience, especially in contexts with limited medical resources.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that SBIs have a positive effect on the resilience of children and adolescents. In the context of limited medical resources, SBIs could serve as a complementary or alternative therapy to promote the ability of children and adolescents to adapt to stressors. Given the considerable heterogeneity identified, clinical practice should prioritize the selection and implementation of interventions that take into account the demographic characteristics of children and adolescents. These interventions should be personalized on the basis of actual dose-response to improve the overall well-being of children and adolescents and reduce the risk of maladaptive psychological and behavioral responses.

Acknowledgments

The research team would like to thank Southwest University for the support of this research, and also thank SL for the help in developing the research programme.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China (project 24BTY098).

Author contributions

CC: Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Software, Writing – review & editing, Investigation. ZM: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Validation, Data curation. ZW: Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Validation. SL: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Methodology.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1594658/full#supplementary-material

DataSheet1.docx (42.6KB, docx)

References

  • 1. Gupta S, McCarthy PJ. The sporting resilience model: A systematic review of resilience in sport performers. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:1003053. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1003053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Mei Z, Jiang W, Zhang Y, Luo S, Luo S. Mind-body therapies for resilience in adolescents: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. (2024) 91:43–51. doi:  10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2024.08.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Anderson K, Priebe S. Concepts of resilience in adolescent mental health research. J Adolesc Health. (2021) 69:689–95. doi:  10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.03.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Hill Y, Den Hartigh RJ, Meijer RR, De Jonge P, Van Yperen NW. The temporal process of resilience. Sport Exercise Performa Psychol. (2018) 7:363–70. doi:  10.1037/spy0000143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Métais C, Burel N, Gillham JE, Tarquinio C, Martin-Krumm C. Integrative review of the recent literature on human resilience: From concepts, theories, and discussions towards a complex understanding. Europe's J Psychol. (2022) 18:98–119. doi:  10.5964/ejop.2251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. IJntema RC, Schaufeli WB, Burger YD. Resilience mechanisms at work: The psychological immunity-psychological elasticity (PI-PE) model of psychological resilience. Curr Psychol. (2023) 42:4719–31. doi:  10.1007/s12144-021-01813-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Forehand R, Middleton K, Long N. Adolescent functioning as a consequence of recent parental divorce and the parent-adolescent relationship. J Appl Dev Psychol. (1987) 8:305–15. doi:  10.1016/0193-3973(87)90006-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Grant KE, Compas BE, Thurm AE, McMahon SD, Gipson PY. Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology: Measurement issues and prospective effects. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. (2004) 33:412–25. doi:  10.1207/s15374424jccp3302_23 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Keane K, Evans RR, Orihuela CA, Mrug S. Teacher–student relationships, stress, and psychosocial functioning during early adolescence. Psychol Schools. (2023) 60:5124–44. doi:  10.1002/pits.23020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Vanaelst B, De Vriendt T, Huybrechts I, Rinaldi S, De Henauw S. Epidemiological approaches to measure childhood stress. Paedia Perinatal Epidemiol. (2012) 26:280–97. doi:  10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01258.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Knack JM, Jensen-Campbell LA, Baum A. Worse than sticks and stones? Bullying is associated with altered HPA axis functioning and poorer health. Brain Cognit. (2011) 77:183–90. doi:  10.1016/j.bandc.2011.06.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Kieling C, Buchweitz C, Caye A, Silvani J, Ameis SH, Brunoni AR, et al. Worldwide prevalence and disability from mental disorders across childhood and adolescence: evidence from the global burden of disease study. JAMA Psychiatry. (2024) 81:347–56. doi:  10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.5051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Dray J, Bowman J, Campbell E, Freund M, Wolfenden L, Hodder RK, et al. Systematic review of universal resilience-focused interventions targeting child and adolescent mental health in the school setting. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2017) 56:813–24. doi:  10.1016/j.jaac.2017.07.780 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Pinto TM, Laurence PG, Macedo CR, Macedo EC. Resilience programs for children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:754115. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2021.754115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Finch J, Farrell LJ, Waters AM. Searching for the HERO in youth: Does psychological capital (PsyCap) predict mental health symptoms and subjective wellbeing in Australian school-aged children and adolescents? Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. (2020) 51:1025–36. doi:  10.1007/s10578-020-01023-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Skrove M, Romundstad P, Indredavik MS. Resilience, lifestyle and symptoms of anxiety and depression in adolescence: the Young-HUNT study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. (2013) 48:407–16. doi:  10.1007/s00127-012-0561-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Hjemdal O, Vogel PA, Solem S, Hagen K, Stiles TC. The relationship between resilience and levels of anxiety, depression, and obsessive–compulsive symptoms in adolescents. Clin Psychol Psychother. (2011) 18:314–21. doi:  10.1002/cpp.719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Ma A, Yang Y, Guo S, Li X, Zhang S, Chang H. Adolescent resilience and mobile phone addiction in Henan Province of China: Impacts of chain mediating, coping style. PLoS One. (2022) 17:e0278182. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0278182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Fergus S, Zimmerman MA. Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annu Rev Public Health. (2005) 26:399–419. doi:  10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Regalla MA, Guilherme P, Aguilera P, Serra-Pinheiro MA, Mattos P. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is an independent risk factor for lower resilience in adolescents: a pilot study. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. (2015) 37:157–60. doi:  10.1590/2237-6089-2015-0010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Ali MM, Dwyer DS, Vanner EA, Lopez A. Adolescent propensity to engage in health risky behaviors: The role of individual resilience. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2010) 7:2161–76. doi:  10.3390/ijerph7052161 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Kuo C, Mathews C, Giovenco D, Atujuna M, Beardslee W, Hoare J, et al. Acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of a resilience-oriented family intervention to prevent adolescent HIV and depression: a pilot randomized controlled trial. AIDS Educ Prevent. (2020) 32:67–81. doi:  10.1521/aeap.2020.32.1.67 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Mampane MR. The effect of a community-based social support programme on the resilience of children from vulnerable families. Early Child Dev Care. (2020) 190:1638–53. doi:  10.1080/03004430.2019.1670653 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Lee S, Lee J, Choi JY. The effect of a resilience improvement program for adolescents with complex congenital heart disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. (2017) 16:290–8. doi:  10.1177/1474515116659836 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Clemens J. Fostering resilience in hospitalized children. Pediatr Nurs. (2020) 46:204–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Rones M, Hoagwood K. School-based mental health services: A research review. Clin Child Family Psychol Rev. (2000) 3:223–41. doi:  10.1023/A:1026425104386 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Ang WHD, Lau ST, Cheng LJ, Chew HSJ, Tan JH, Shorey S, et al. Effectiveness of resilience interventions for higher education students: A meta-analysis and metaregression. J Educ Psychol. (2022) 114:1670–94. doi:  10.1037/edu0000719 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Liu JJ, Ein N, Gervasio J, Battaion M, Reed M, Vickers K. Comprehensive meta-analysis of resilience interventions. Clin Psychol Rev. (2020) 82:101919. doi:  10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101919 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Llistosella M, Goni-Fuste B, Martín-Delgado L, Miranda-Mendizabal A, Franch Martinez B, Pérez-Ventana C, et al. Effectiveness of resilience-based interventions in schools for adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. (2023) 14:1211113. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1211113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Katz DL. School-based interventions for health promotion and weight control: not just waiting on the world to change. Annu Rev Public Health. (2009) 30:253–72. doi:  10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Kazdin AE, Johnson B. Advances in psychotherapy for children and adolescents: Interrelations of adjustment, development, and intervention. J School Psychol. (1994) 32:217–46. doi:  10.1016/0022-4405(94)90016-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Rava J, Hotez E, Halfon N. The role of social capital in resilience among adolescents with adverse family environments. Curr Prob Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. (2023) 53:101436. doi:  10.1016/j.cppeds.2023.101436 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Morrison GM, Allen MR. Promoting student resilience in school contexts. Theory into Pract. (2007) 46:162–9. doi:  10.1080/00405840701233172 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Amin R, Nadeem E, Iqbal K, Asadullah MA, Hussain B. Support for students exposed to trauma (SSET) program: An approach for building resilience and social support among flood-impacted children. School Ment Health. (2020) 12:493–506. doi:  10.1007/s12310-020-09373-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Cheng C, Li S, Chen S. Evaluation of a multicomponent positive psychology program to prevent gaming disorder and enhance mental wellness in primary pupils: A randomized controlled trial. J Behav Addict. (2024) 13:871–83. doi:  10.1556/2006.2024.00052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Khalsa SBS, Hickey-Schultz L, Cohen D, Steiner N, Cope S. Evaluation of the mental health benefits of yoga in a secondary school: A preliminary randomized controlled trial. J Behav Health Serv Res. (2012) 39:80–90. doi:  10.1007/s11414-011-9249-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Bogaert L, Hallford D, Loyen E, D'Argembeau A, Raes F. Recalling and anticipating positive events to improve the positive affect and mental health of adolescents: A cluster randomized controlled trial in secondary schools. Behav Res Ther. (2024) 179:104543. doi:  10.1016/j.brat.2024.104543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Niu Y, Jiang X, Ashong Z, Hou J, Bai Y, Bai G, et al. Developing a resilience intervention approach for adolescents living with natural hazards risks: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Int J Disas Risk Reduct. (2021) 58:102190. doi:  10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102190 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Porter B, Oyanadel C, Sáez-Delgado F, Andaur A, Peñate W. Systematic review of mindfulness-based interventions in child-adolescent population: A developmental perspective. Eur J Invest Health Psychol Educ. (2022) 12:1220–43. doi:  10.3390/ejihpe12080085 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Sun J, Stewart D. Age and gender effects on resilience in children and adolescents. Int J Ment Health promot. (2007) 9:16–25. doi:  10.1080/14623730.2007.9721845 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Prabhu SG, Shekhar R. The role of socio-economic status in adolescent resilience and self-esteem. Indian J Health Wellbeing. (2017) 8:985–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Zolkoski SM, Bullock LM. Resilience in children and youth: A review. Children Youth Serv Rev. (2012) 34:2295–303. doi:  10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Internal Med. (2015) 162:777–84. doi:  10.7326/M14-2385 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. (2011) 343:1–9. doi:  10.1136/bmj.d5928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, Group CSM. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li TPM, Welch V, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken: (2019). p. 241–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. (2003) 327:557–60. doi:  10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Jackson D, Riley R, White IR. Multivariate meta-analysis: potential and promise. Stat Med. (2011) 30:2481–98. doi:  10.1002/sim.4172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Harbord RM, Higgins JP. Meta-regression in stata. Stata J. (2008) 8:493–519. doi:  10.1177/1536867X0800800403 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. (1997) 315:629–34. doi:  10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Tang J-L, Liu JL. Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis. J Clin epidemiol. (2000) 53:477–84. doi:  10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00204-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. (2000) 56:455–63. doi:  10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. (2011) 64:380–2. doi:  10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Chen J, Johnstone KM, Kemps E. A randomised controlled trial evaluating two universal prevention programs for children: Building resilience to manage worry. J Affect Disord. (2022) 297:437–46. doi:  10.1016/j.jad.2021.10.079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Chisholm K, Patterson P, Torgerson C, Turner E, Jenkinson D, Birchwood M. Impact of contact on adolescents' mental health literacy and stigma: the SchoolSpace cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. (2016) 6:1–11. doi:  10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009435 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Felver JC, Clawson AJ, Morton ML, Brier-Kennedy E, Janack P, DiFlorio RA. School-based mindfulness intervention supports adolescent resiliency: A randomized controlled pilot study. Int J School Educ Psychol. (2019) 7:111–22. doi:  10.1080/21683603.2018.1461722 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Gance-Cleveland B, Mays MZ. School-based support groups for adolescents with a substance-abusing parent. J Am Psychiatr Nurs Associat. (2008) 14:297–309. doi:  10.1177/1078390308321223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Gao J, Roslan S, Soh KG, Zaremohzzabieh Z. Effects of positive education intervention on growth mindset and resilience among boarding middle school adolescents in China: a randomized controlled trial. Front Psychol. (2024) 15:1446260. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1446260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Gomez-Restrepo C, Sarmiento-Suarez MJ, Alba-Saavedra M, Calvo-Valderrama MG, Rincon-Rodriguez CJ, Bird VJ, et al. Development and implementation of DIALOG+S in the school setting as a tool for promoting adolescent mental well-being and resilience in a post-armed conflict area in Colombia: exploratory cluster randomized controlled trial. JMIR Formative Res. (2023) 7:e46757. doi:  10.2196/46757 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Greco G, Cataldi S, Fischetti F. Karate as anti-bullying strategy by improvement resilience and self-efficacy in school-age youth. J Phys Educ Sport. (2019) 19:1863–70. doi:  10.7752/jpes.2019.s5276 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Green AL, Ferrante S, Boaz TL, Kutash K, Wheeldon-Reece B. Social and emotional learning during early adolescence: Effectiveness of a classroom-based SEL program for middle school students. Psychol Schools. (2021) 58:1056–69. doi:  10.1002/pits.22487 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Green AL, Ferrante S, Boaz TL, Kutash K, Wheeldon-Reece B. Evaluation of the SPARK child mentoring program: A social and emotional learning curriculum for elementary school students. J Primary Prevent. (2021) 42:531–47. doi:  10.1007/s10935-021-00642-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Green AL, Ferrante S, Boaz TL, Kutash K, Wheeldon-Reece B. Effects of the SPARK teen mentoring program for high school students. J Child Family Stud. (2022) 31:1982–93. doi:  10.1007/s10826-022-02298-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Hatamizadeh N, Adibsereshki N, Kazemnejad A, Sajedi F. Randomized trial of a resilience intervention on resilience, behavioral strengths and difficulties of mainstreamed adolescent students with hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. (2020) 128:109722. doi:  10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109722 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Ho FKW, Louie LHT, Hing-Sang Wong W, Chan KL, Tiwari A, Chow CB, et al. A sports-based youth development program, teen mental health, and physical fitness: An RCT. Pediatrics. (2017) 140:e20171543. doi:  10.1542/peds.2017-1543 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Huang W, Wu P, Li J, Zhou Y, Xiong Z, Su P, et al. Effectiveness of a universal resilience-focused intervention for children in the school setting: A randomized controlled trial. J Affect Disord. (2025) 368:695–703. doi:  10.1016/j.jad.2024.09.120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Hyun MS, Nam KA, Kim MA. Randomized controlled trial of a cognitive-behavioral therapy for at-risk korean male adolescents. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. (2010) 24:202–11. doi:  10.1016/j.apnu.2009.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Irfan Arif M, Mirza MS. Effectiveness of an Intervention Program in Fostering Academic Resilience of Students at Risk of Failure at Secondary School Level. Bull Educ Res. (2017) 39:251–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Johnstone KM, Middleton T, Kemps E, Chen J. A pilot investigation of universal school-based prevention programs for anxiety and depression symptomology in children: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Psychol. (2020) 76:1193–216. doi:  10.1002/jclp.22926 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Jones BK, Destin M. Effects of positive versus negative expressive writing exercises on adolescent academic achievement. J Appl Soc Psychol. (2021) 51:549–59. doi:  10.1111/jasp.12756 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Laundy K, Friberg P, Osika W, Chen Y. Mindfulness-based intervention for children with mental health problems: a 2-year follow-up randomized controlled study. Mindfulness. (2021) 12:3073–85. doi:  10.1007/s12671-021-01771-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Leventhal KS, Gillham J, DeMaria L, Andrew G, Peabody J, Leventhal S. Building psychosocial assets and wellbeing among adolescent girls: A randomized controlled trial. J Adolesc. (2015) 45:284–95. doi:  10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Li CX, Ma C, Li P, Liang ZJ. The effect of model-based group counseling on the resiliency of disadvantaged adolescents from poor areas of China: A single-blind randomized controlled study. School Ment Health. (2022) 14:550–67. doi:  10.1007/s12310-021-09479-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Liu X, Lei L, Zheng Y, Deng Y, Chen J. Alleviating learning burnout of Chinese middle school students by school-based mindfulness training: The mediating role of psychological resilience. Psychol Schools. (2024) 61:1034–53. doi:  10.1002/pits.23101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Llistosella M, Castellvi P, Garcia-Ortiz M, Lopez-Hita G, Torne C, Ortiz R, et al. Effectiveness of an Intervention Program in Fostering Academic Resilience of Students at Risk of Failure at Secondary School Level. Front Psychol. (2024) 15:1478424. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1478424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Mertens ECA, Dekovic M, van Londen M, Reitz E. Parallel changes in positive youth development and self-awareness: the role of emotional self-regulation, self-esteem, and self-reflection. Prev Sci. (2022) 23:502–12. doi:  10.1007/s11121-022-01345-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Moore B, Woodcock S, Dudley D. Well-being warriors: A randomized controlled trial examining the effects of martial arts training on secondary students' resilience. Br J Educ Psychol. (2021) 91:1369–94. doi:  10.1111/bjep.12422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Moran MJ, Aichele S, Shomaker LB, Lucas-Thompson RG, Heberlein E, Chandrasekhar JL, et al. Supporting youth mental health through a health coaching intervention with a mindfulness component: A pilot randomized controlled trial during COVID-19. Child Youth Care Forum. (2024) 53:645–66. doi:  10.1007/s10566-023-09764-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Noggle JJ, Steiner NJ, Minami T, Khalsa SBS. Benefits of yoga for psychosocial well-being in a US high school curriculum: A preliminary randomized controlled trial. J Dev Behav Pediatr. (2012) 33:193–201. doi:  10.1097/DBP.0b013e31824afdc4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. O'Connor M, O'Reilly G, Murphy E, Connaughton L, Hoctor E, McHugh L. Universal process-based CBT for positive mental health in early adolescence: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther. (2022) 154:104120. doi:  10.1016/j.brat.2022.104120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Peter A, Srivastava R, Agarwal A, Singh AP. The effect of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy on anxiety and resilience of the school going early adolescents with anxiety. J Indian Assoc Child Adolesc Ment Health. (2022) 18:176–85. doi:  10.1177/09731342221127959 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Rice KJ, Chen J, Kemps E, Roberts RM, Edwards S, Johnstone K. Two universal school-based prevention programs for depression and anxiety: 24-Month follow-up of an RCT. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. (2024) 85:101985. doi:  10.1016/j.jbtep.2024.101985 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Rich BA, Starin NS, Senior CJ, Zarger MM, Cummings CM, Collado A, et al. Improved resilience and academics following A school-based resilience intervention: A randomized controlled trial. Evidence-Based Pract Child Adolesc Ment Health. (2023) 8:252–68. doi:  10.1080/23794925.2022.2025630 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Seale JP, Seale DM, Pande Y, Lewis TM, Manda W, Kasanga L, et al. GROW Zambia: A pilot cluster-randomized trial of a spiritually-based character strengths training curriculum to enhance resilience among Zambian youth. J Positive Psychol. (2022) 17:596–609. doi:  10.1080/17439760.2021.1913640 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Tang Y, Diao H, Jin F, Pu Y, Wang H. The effect of peer education based on adolescent health education on the resilience of children and adolescents: A cluster randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. (2022) 17:e0263012. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0263012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Volanen SM, Lassander M, Hankonen N, Santalahti P, Hintsanen M, Simonsen N, et al. Healthy learning mind – Effectiveness of a mindfulness program on mental health compared to a relaxation program and teaching as usual in schools: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. J Affect Disord. (2020) 260:660–9. doi:  10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Richards M, Lewis G, Cornelli Sanderson R, Deane K, Quimby D. Introduction to special issue: Resilience-based approaches to trauma intervention for children and adolescents. J Child Adolesc Trauma. (2016) 9:1–4. doi:  10.1007/s40653-016-0081-4 27152132 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Zenner C, Herrnleben-Kurz S, Walach H. Mindfulness-based interventions in schools—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. (2014) 5:603. doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Kieling C, Baker-Henningham H, Belfer M, Conti G, Ertem I, Omigbodun O, et al. Child and adolescent mental health worldwide: evidence for action. Lancet. (2011) 378:1515–25. doi:  10.1016/S01406736(11)60827-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Fusick L, Bordeau WC. Counseling at-risk Afro-American youth: An examination of contemporary issues and effective school-based strategies. Prof School Counsel. (2004) 8:102–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Owens JS, Murphy CE. Effectiveness research in the context of school-based mental health. Clin Child Family Psychol Rev. (2004) 7:195–209. doi:  10.1007/s10567-004-6085-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Pandey A, Hale D, Das S, Goddings A-L, Blakemore S-J, Viner RM. Effectiveness of universal self-regulation–based interventions in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. (2018) 172:566–75. doi:  10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.0232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92. Brooks JE. Strengthening resilience in children and youths: Maximizing opportunities through the schools. Children Schools. (2006) 28:69–76. doi:  10.1093/cs/28.2.69 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

DataSheet1.docx (42.6KB, docx)

Articles from Frontiers in Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES