A Scoping Review of School Connectedness Interventions for Adolescents

ABSTRACT

Background

Given the importance of school connectedness for healthy adolescent development, this scoping review aimed to identify and describe intervention strategies used to increase school connectedness among adolescents.

Methods

Guided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a scoping review of school‐based intervention studies published between 2011 and 2023 targeting school connectedness among adolescents. Intervention strategies were organized using a social‐ecological framework.

Findings

There were 24 included studies across 12 countries, targeting students aged 10–20 years. Various theories, study designs, and measurement tools were used. Interventions were primarily classroom‐based, with common strategies including lessons, skill‐building, and role plays. Most targeted the individual or interpersonal level rather than the organizational level. Despite it generally being a secondary outcome, 11 of the 23 interventions had a positive effect on school connectedness.

Implications for School Health Policy, Practice, and Equity

There are promising strategies across multiple social‐ecological levels that can be used to increase school connectedness among adolescents.

Conclusions

A diversity of promising intervention strategies have been implemented to increase school connectedness. Future studies need to further define school connectedness, explore strategies at the organizational level, and measure the effectiveness of different strategies.

1. Introduction

School connectedness is associated with a range of positive health and social outcomes for young people [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines school connectedness as students' belief that adults and peers care, value, and support them in school [7]. While definitions vary, school connectedness can be viewed as a subconstruct of school climate and engagement that focuses specifically on the emotional level of engagement within the engagement domain of the Safe and Supportive Schools Model [8]. Students who feel more connected to school have been found to be less likely to engage in high‐risk behaviors, such as violence, sexual activity, and substance use, and are more likely to engage in positive health behaviors, such as physical activity and healthy eating [2, 6, 9, 10, 11]. Additionally, higher school connectedness has been associated with better academic outcomes and mental well‐being [10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. High school connectedness during adolescence can have long‐term positive health effects that go beyond the school‐age years [10].

The role of school connectedness in adolescent health takes on further importance given the increased prevalence of depression and anxiety among adolescents in the United States (U.S.) and globally [17, 18] and recent calls of action to address the current ‘epidemic of loneliness’ in the U.S. and globally [19, 20]. According to surveys in the U.S., Australia, and the United Kingdom, approximately one‐third of young people report feeling lonely, and more than 20% feel lonely often or always [21, 22, 23]. In the U.S., while many elementary school students feel connected to their school [24, 25], school connectedness has been shown to decline throughout middle and high school [26, 27]. Given the current high prevalence of loneliness among adolescents and the multiple benefits of school connectedness, school connectedness represents an important target for adolescent health promotion.

School connectedness interventions can be organized using individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels of the Social‐Ecological Model (SEM) [28]. Interventions targeting the individual level aim to change knowledge, attitudes, skills, or intentions, while interventions targeting the interpersonal level are designed to modify social influences and norms [28]. Interventions targeting the organizational level aim to modify broader structures, processes, and culture [28].

The CDC has identified four school connectedness strategies that lead to reductions in high‐risk behaviors: mentoring programs, service learning opportunities, student‐led clubs, and professional development for educators [7]. In better understanding the role of these strategies and other promising strategies in fostering school connectedness, a scoping review of the literature is warranted. A 2013 study by Chapman et al. reviewed school connectedness interventions for students between ages 5 and 18 but found that the majority of interventions targeted elementary‐aged children [29]. As research indicates that middle and high school students often experience lower rates of school connectedness compared to elementary school students [25, 26, 27], an updated review is needed that specifically focuses on age‐appropriate interventions for middle and high school aged adolescents.

In addressing current gaps in the literature and in advancing our collective understanding of strategies aimed at fostering school connectedness, we conducted a scoping review of school connectedness interventions among adolescents (ages 10–18 years). The aims of this scoping review were to: (a) describe the characteristics of studies evaluating school connectedness interventions; (b) describe the types of interventions used to increase school connectedness among young people, including their theoretical basis; and (c) characterize findings related to school connectedness.

2. Methods

Following the methodological framework outlined by Arksey and O'Malley [30] with updates by Westphaln et al. [31] and Levac et al. [32], we conducted a scoping literature review of articles published between January 2011 and September 2023 using the following online databases: PubMed, PsycInfo, ERIC (Education Resources and Information Clearinghouse), ScienceDirect, and ProQuest Education and Psychology. Below, we describe our methods as guided by the five‐step Arksey and O'Malley framework.

2.1. Identifying the Research Question

In characterizing the extent of research on school connectedness interventions, this review was guided by the following research question: What is known from the current peer‐reviewed literature about the types and effects of interventions aimed at increasing school connectedness among adolescents? This overarching research question led to an initial exploratory search, which was then used to refine and identify our three specific aims cited above.

2.2. Identifying Relevant Studies

We identified studies published between January 2011 and September 2023. This time frame was chosen to cover the literature published since the previous review, which examined the literature on school connectedness interventions published through August 2011 [29]. We only included articles that were peer‐reviewed and available in English. The following key words and search string were used in all databases: ((“School connectedness”) OR (“School attachment”) OR (“School bonding”)) AND ((“Intervention”) OR (“Program”) OR (“Prevention”)) AND ((“adolescents”) OR (“teenagers”) OR (“youth”)). The search was performed by the lead author [31].

2.3. Study Selection

Studies were selected for inclusion based on several criteria. The studies were required to be experimental or quasi‐experimental (with or without a comparison group) and include a school connectedness outcome measure that is either quantitative or qualitative. For the purposes of this study, school connectedness was operationalized as the feeling of belonging to and being part of the school; feeling happy and liking school; feeling safe, engaged, accepted and valued at school; feeling teachers and other adults in school are fair and care about them; and having good relationships with other students [33]. Given the broad and overlapping nature of constructs, studies that measured similar constructs, such as school climate, were included if they met our operationalization by assessing students' individual feelings.

The interventions were required to be school‐based universal prevention programs designed for adolescents. Interventions were considered universal as long as they did not specifically target at‐risk individuals. Interventions were required to take place at the school but did not have to occur during school hours. For this review, adolescence was operationalized as individuals aged 10–18 years. Because this is a descriptive review and there is variation in the schooling system across countries, there was some flexibility in the grade levels and ages included. This age range was selected because adolescence is when school connectedness begins to decrease [24, 26, 27] and is thus the ideal age to target for investigation.

The lead author performed the initial screening of articles by title, abstract, and full text. When it was unclear whether a full‐text article met the inclusion criteria, the second author was consulted to reach an agreement. The screening process for this review is illustrated in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1.

PRISMA Diagram of Study Identification Process, Review of School Connectedness Interventions for Adolescents (January 2011–September 2023).

2.4. Charting the Data

To satisfy our first aim of describing the studies, we extracted information about the study sample, study design, and outcomes assessed. We also charted information about the scales used to measure school connectedness, the name of the construct, and reliability and validity information. For our second aim of describing the school connectedness intervention, we extracted information about each intervention's theoretical foundation, components, setting, duration, and facilitator. This breadth of information was extracted to develop a broad understanding of the types of interventions available. To satisfy our third aim of characterizing findings, we described the evidence by charting the implementation fidelity and results related to school connectedness for each study.

2.5. Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting Results

After charting the data, we conducted a descriptive analysis by producing tables that describe and quantify the nature of the included studies. To address our specific research aims, we created tables illustrating the study characteristics, study design and results, measures of school connectedness, and intervention characteristics. We categorized strategies for improving school connectedness into individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels based on SEM [28]. Then, we looked for patterns and themes using both an inductive and deductive approach, coding characteristics of interest and grouping them together based on similar themes. Finally, we related our findings back to our previously stated research aims and put them in context to draw conclusions and determine future directions for research and implications for school health.

3. Findings

3.1. Study Characteristics

The descriptive characteristics of the final selected studies are summarized in Table 1. Of the 2960 studies identified by the databases, 24 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review. There were 23 unique interventions, as two of the studies examined the same intervention [42, 43]. Although they analyzed the same data, both studies were included because one analyzed unstratified data while the other analyzed stratified data to determine if there was a differential effect of the intervention within student subgroups.

TABLE 1.

Characteristics of Included Studies, Review of School Connectedness Interventions for Adolescents (January 2011–September 2023).

References	Population	Study design	Overview of intervention	Measures of school connectedness	Other outcomes assessed	Results related to school connectedness
Acosta et al., 2019 [34]	n = 2834 students across 13 middle schools throughout Maine	Cluster randomized controlled trial with school‐wise assignment and follow‐up at two years	Restorative Practices Intervention aims to build a supportive environment through the use of 11 restorative practices, both formal and informal. School staff were trained and coached students on 7 of the 11 essential practices. SEM Levels: Organizational, Interpersonal, Individual	Inventory of School Climate; five‐item scale from National Adolescent Health Study for school connectedness	Peer attachment, social skills, bullying victimization, student report of restorative practices	Models showed that experience with restorative practices had significant positive relationship with school climate and school connectedness (b = 0.421; β = 0.48 with 95% CI: 0.41–0.56) However, the intervention itself did not yield significant changes in the treatment schools.
Berg et al., 2016 [35]	n = 47 students aged 10–18 from a school district in British Columbia, Canada	Qualitative focus groups two months after implementation	Got Health? is an initiative that engages students in shaping health initiatives in schools, in hopes of making students feel empowered to make change in their school and ultimately lead them to create healthier school climates. School teams apply for the project and work with a teacher, administrators, and community partners throughout the project. SEM Levels: Organizational, Interpersonal	Semi‐structured focus groups with students and teachers	Motivation, relevance of information, health awareness/action, enjoyment at school	Teachers observed that some students felt more connected and engaged and that school had a more collaborative environment. Students reported increased school connectedness among incoming students and new friendships among current students.
Bowes et al., 2019 [36]	n = 1901 secondary school students for pilot test in South Sulawesi; n = 5308 students for randomized waitlist controlled trial in Central Java	Pre‐ post‐intervention pilot study with control group; Cluster randomized waitlist controlled trial with follow‐up at seven months	ROOTS Indonesia program is an anti‐bullying program in which students choose their own activities to spread pro‐social norms throughout the peer group. The highly connected students meet with a trained research assistant every week to identify common conflict behaviors and be the public face of opposition to these conflicts. The intervention uses a “grassroots campaign” approach and lacks an educational/persuasive aspect from adults. Trained facilitators follow semi‐structured scripts and activity guides. SEM Levels: Interpersonal	The Beyond Blue School Climate Scale	Bullying, prescriptive and descriptive social norms, teacher handling bullying	1st Pilot: No overall change in positive school climate; RCT: There was a small increase in positive school climate in the intervention condition, but it was not significant.
Chapman et al., 2013 [37]	n = 273 at baseline and n = 299 at follow up; Grade 8 students from 5 secondary schools in Canberra, Australia	Quasi‐experimental with random school‐wise assignment to intervention or control group and follow‐up at six months	Skills for preventing injury in youth (SPIY) programme combines teacher professional development for increasing school connectedness with a risk and injury prevention curriculum. It is an 8‐week (50‐min weekly lessons) curriculum for Grade 8 students (aged 13–14) that includes topics like vehicle use, interpersonal violence, and alcohol use. The goal is to increase safe behaviors, decrease risk‐taking, reduce peers' involvement in risk, and increase perceptions of injury severity and preparedness to help friends through first aid training. SEM Levels: Organizational, Interpersonal, Individual	The Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) scale	Injury, risk‐taking, alcohol use	Overall, school connectedness scores decreased significantly over time for both intervention (mean = 3.08 ± 0.5 at baseline, mean = 2.07 ± 0.5 at follow‐up) and control (mean = 3.19 ± 0.46 at baseline, mean = 3.01 ± 0.55). There was no difference by condition in school connectedness (F (1) = 1.52, p = 0.22).
Connolly et al., 2015 [38]	n = 509 grade 7 and 8 students across 42 classrooms in 4 middle schools in Canada	Quasi‐experimental with random assignment of two schools to intervention and control group and follow‐up in the Spring of implementation school year	Respect in Schools Everywhere (RISE) YLP: Mental health workers train 25 students from grades 11–12 to be peer leaders and plan two presentations. They conduct the presentations in Grade 7 and 8 classrooms. Each of the two classes are 45 min. SEM Levels: Interpersonal, Individual	The Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) scale	Knowledge, attitudes, victimization	Intervention group maintained a high level of school connectedness from fall to spring, whereas those in the usual practice group showed a significant decline (p < 0.05). Differences between intervention and usual practice group were significant (estimate = 0.133, SE = 0.058, p = 0.022).
Domitrovich et al., 2022 [39]	n = 694 7th and 8th grade students from a low‐resourced school district in Pennsylvania	Cluster randomized controlled trial with school‐wise assignment and follow‐up in the Spring of implementation school year	Facing History and Ourselves aims to improve classroom environment and promote positive youth development by encouraging “informed civic reflection.” Teachers try to foster civic disposition, historical understanding, and social/ethical reflection. This is used to improve classroom climate, promote academic discussion, and increase engagement. Materials are implemented over the course of one semester. SEM Levels: Interpersonal, Individual	School Attachment subscale within School Climate Survey developed by the New Haven School Development Project	Social–emotional competencies, civic beliefs, problem behavior, classroom climate	Intervention exposure was not associated with school attachment (Cohen's d = 0.06, p = 0.39), although other measures of school climate were significant.
Duthely et al., 2017 [40]	n = 55 middle school students in a public charter school located in a low‐income urban region of Metropolitan Miami	Quasi‐experimental with students randomized to delayed‐intervention, no‐treatment control, or experimental group	Heart‐centered, gratitude‐meditation fused meditation with gratitude visualizations. There were ten 15–20‐min sessions, and students were encouraged to practice at home in between sessions. SEM Levels: Individual	School Satisfaction Subscale of the Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale	Life satisfaction, gratitude	A significant difference was detected for the intervention's effect on posttest school satisfaction (p = 0.001, η 2 = 0.185)
Ferrer‐Cascales et al., 2019 [41]	n = 2057 Spanish students aged 11–16 from 22 schools in Spain	Quasi‐experimental with school‐wise assignment to treatment or waitlist control and follow‐up at seven months	TEI “Peer Tutoring” Program is a school‐based peer‐tutoring intervention oriented towards preventing school violence and cyber bullying among secondary school students. The program aims to improve school climate and promote a positive school coexistence through the development of problem‐solving strategies and integration of a culture of zero tolerance for violence. The intervention involved 6 stages: getting approval for the program, teacher training, student tutors training, pairing students, tutoring activities, and closing. SEM Levels: Interpersonal	Spanish version of the school climate questionnaire	Bullying, cyberbullying	No differences were found between groups for sense of belonging. There was a significant effect of the interaction group×time for sense of belonging (F (1,20)=126.234, p = 0.00, η 2 = 0.058). When age was introduced as a covariate, sense of belonging did not reach statistical significance (F (1,20)=2.515, p = 0.113).
Hodder et al., 2018 [42]	n = 2105 grade 7 students in 32 Australian secondary schools, followed up in grade 10	Secondary analysis of data from cluster randomized controlled trial	3‐year universal intervention involving 16 broad strategy areas seeking to build protective factors across all three domains of the Health Promoting Schools framework. Schools were provided with details of existing available resources and programmes targeting the protective factors. Schools could select the order of topics and resources used in the implementation. SEM Levels: Organizational, Interpersonal, Individual	The Resilience and Youth Development module of the California Healthy Kids Survey The Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) scale	Substance use, individual protective factors (cooperation, communication, self‐efficacy, empathy, problem solving, self‐awareness, goals and aspirations)	There was no difference in mean individual or environmental protective factor scores between intervention and control students (mean difference = −0.02, 95% CI = −0.09 to 0.06, p = 0.67). There was also no differential effect for any of the individual/environmental protective factors.
Hodder et al., 2017 [43]	n = 2105 grade 7 students in 32 Australian secondary schools, followed up in grade 11	Cluster randomized controlled trial with school‐wise assignment and follow up at three years
Ingram et al., 2019 [44]	n = 118 7th and 8th grade students in the U.S. Midwest (72 in control, 46 in intervention) aged 11 to 14	Pseudo‐randomized controlled trial with school‐wise randomization and follow up at one week	Stand Up: Virtual Reality to Activate Bystanders Against Bullying is a virtual reality enhanced bullying prevention program that includes professionally designed scenarios which place students in situations. The experience decreases all four dimensions of psychological distance (spatial, social, temporal, hypothetical). Intervention occurred once a week over six weeks. SEM Levels: Individual	The Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) scale	Empathy, willingness to intervene, bullying perpetration, relational aggression perpetration, cyberbullying perpetration	Receiving the virtual reality intervention was associated with increased school connectedness through empathy as a mediating pathway (β = 0.24, SE = 0.10, p < 0.01).
Miller et al., 2017 [45]	n = 627 5th grade students in six elementary schools in southwestern United States	Quasi‐experimental with classroom‐wise randomization and follow up immediately after implementation	Relationship Building Intervention (RBI) includes a series of teacher‐facilitated, structured activities to promote positive peer relationships and inclusive classroom communities. There were 21 activities across 5 units. Activities were about 45 min and were administered once a week over the course of 26 weeks. SEM Levels: Interpersonal, Individual	Subscale from the School Liking and Avoidance Questionnaire and adapted version of the Classroom Identification and Participation subscale of the Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale	Social behaviors, academic achievement, knowledge of RBI concepts	Intervention students reported liking school more (Est = 0.33, SE = 0.13, ES = 0.42, p < 0.05) and feeling a greater sense of belonging and inclusion in their classrooms (Est = 0.27, SE = 0.13, ES = 0.61, p < 0.05) as compared to students in control classrooms.
Paschall et al., 2022 [46]	n = 24,527 students in secondary school grades 1–5 (ages 11–20) in Peru	Randomized controlled trial with three follow‐ups at six‐month intervals	Universal Prevention Curriculum is a program for school administrators and teachers that focuses on effective strategies to prevent adolescent substance use and promote a positive school climate. Trainings focus on increasing knowledge of substance use prevention programming and improving competencies of those implementing these programs. SEM Levels: Organizational	Students were asked how much they agreed with the following statements: “Students in my class like to be together”; “Most people in my class are kind and help you”; “The other students accept me as I am”; “I have a lot of respect for what teachers tell me”	Substance use	There was a nonsignificant increase in school bonding among intervention participants but a significant decrease among control participants (p < 0.01). Multi‐level regressions found no difference in school bonding over time by intervention condition (β = 0.05, SE = 0.03, p < 0.10)
Schwager et al., 2019 [47]	n = 912 students from nine secondary German schools, with age range of 10 to 17	Quasi‐experimental with classroom‐wise assignment to intervention and waitlist control groups and follow up at ten weeks	“Healthy learning. Together.” is a German health promotion tool that consists of two modules: a box with short and easy exercises and a poster exhibition. The goal is to influence social integration, class climate, and self‐efficacy as resources for wellbeing and physical health of students. Teachers were instructed to use 15 10‐min exercises within 10 weeks. The poster exhibition included 10 posters covering topics regarding typical issues of the age group, with the goal of providing information, encouraging conversation, and providing sources of further information. SEM Levels: Interpersonal, Individual	Linzer Fragebogen zum Schul‐ und Klassenklima (Linzer Questionnaire of School and Class Climate) by Eder and Mayr	Social integration, self‐efficacy, mental and physical wellbeing	ANCOVAs revealed a significant group effect for class climate; intervention students showed more positive changes from pre to post measurement than students of the control group (F(1,920) = 3.857, p = 0.025, η p 2 = 0.004). A high‐adherence subgroup was also analyzed (F(1,598) = 4.702, p = 0.016, η p 2 = 0.008).
Seekis et al., 2022 [48]	n = 18 students aged 12‐ to 14‐years from a combined Year 7 and 8 well‐being class at a coeducational culturally diverse secondary school in Queensland, Australia	Single group pre‐ and post‐intervention study	Be Kind to Yourself, Inspire Others was inspired by the Self‐Compassion Workbook for Teens. A traffic light system was used to remember the stages of self‐compassion. A workbook was issued, and lessons were led by the first author. Students participated in group activities & practiced self‐compassion strategies. The program was 4 weeks long. SEM Levels: Individual	Six items adapted from the Psychological Sense of School Membership scale and the School Connectedness Scale	Self‐compassion, resilience, stress, anxiety	No significant difference was found between pre‐ and post‐measures of school connectedness (t = 0.97, Hedges' g = 0.47).
Shinde et al., 2018 [49]	n = 10,202 participants (3609 in counselor‐delivered group, 3192 in teacher‐delivered group, and 3401 in control group) in grades 9–12 in Bihar, India	Three‐group cluster randomized controlled trial with school‐wise randomization and follow up at eight weeks	Strengthening Evidence base on scHool‐based intErventions for pRomoting adolescent health programme in the state of Bihar, India (SEHER) sought to improve school climate and health‐promoting behaviors. Intervention includes whole‐school activities, group activities, and individual activities. SEM Levels: Organizational, Interpersonal, Individual	Beyond Blue School Climate Questionnaire	Depressive symptoms, bullying, violence, attitudes towards gender equity, and knowledge of reproductive and sexual health	School climate scores at endpoint were higher in the SM group (lay counselor) than the control group (aMD = 7.57, 95% CI = 6.11–9.03, p < 0.0001, ES = 1.88) and the teacher‐led group (aMD = 7.57, 95% CI = 6.06–9.08, p < 0.0001, ES = 1.88). The SM intervention effects were stronger in females than males (p < 0.0001).
Shoshani et al., 2016 [50]	n = 2517 7th‐9th grade students in 70 classrooms, from six schools in the center of Israel	Cluster randomized controlled trial with class‐wise assignment to intervention and waitlist control groups and three follow ups during first year after end of intervention	The Maytiv Program is a positive psychology school‐based program that aims to increase students' subjective well‐being by translating the positive psychology approach into tangible tools and skills. It promotes socio‐emotional competencies and creates engaging and supportive school systems. Unique to this program is its focus on gratitude, compassion, flow, mindfulness, hope, perseverance, and character strengths. There are teacher development workshops and a student curriculum including 15 90‐min sessions that occur every two weeks. In total, the workshop lasted 34 h. SEM Levels: Individual	School engagement survey (National Center for School Engagement [NCSE], 2006)	Subjective well‐being, satisfaction with life, positive and negative affect, friends, school achievement, attendance	Intervention was a predictor of emotional engagement (p < 0.001) and cognitive engagement (p < 0.001). Cohen's d ranged from 0.24–0.71. The intervention group had a growth in engagement in the first 9 months and stayed relatively stable during the second follow‐up year, while the control group showed a significant decrease throughout. Both groups had a deceleration for engagement in the follow‐up year, but the rate of deceleration was smaller for the intervention group (p < 0.001).
Spoth et al., 2019 [51]	n = 446 6th graders (aged 10–13) and their families in the United States	Cluster randomized controlled trial with district‐wise randomization and six follow ups through age 21	Iowa Strengthening Families Program includes six 2‐h sessions involving concurrent youth and parent segments, followed by a joint family skills‐building segment. Sessions discussed disciplinary practices, emotion management, communication skills, peer pressure, personal/social interactional skills. SEM Levels: Interpersonal	3 questions culled from several school surveys: “In general, I like school a lot,” “I get along well with my teachers,” and “I don't feel like I really belong at school” (positive school relationships)	Adolescent marijuana use, positive youth relationships, positive parental relationships, positive and supportive peer relationships, young adult past year illicit substance use, positive relationship affect, close parental relationship, satisfaction with coworkers and job, positive relationships with schoolmates and school, substance initiation risk	The intervention positively influenced relationships for the adolescents with their school (β = 0.323, t = 3.269, p = 0.001). Positive relationship affect in middle school was associated with higher relational affect in early adulthood 10 years later (β = 0.572, 95% CI = 0.355–0.789, t = 5.167, p < 0.0001).
Stallard et al., 2012 [52]	n = 5030 students in years 8–11 (aged 12–16) in the United Kingdom	Three arm cluster randomized controlled trial with grade‐wise randomization and follow ups at six and twelve months	Classroom‐based cognitive behavioral therapy (the resourceful adolescent programme) is a universal depression prevention programme. It teaches skills like emotion‐regulation capacities, coping mechanisms, and thinking styles. It consists of nine modules and two booster sessions, each 50–60 min, and is led by two trained facilitators alongside the class teacher. SEM Levels: Individual	Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale	Low mood, negative thinking, self‐worth & acceptance, anxiety, bullying victimization, alcohol consumption, cannabis use, other drug use, thoughts/experiences of self‐harm	No differences in psychological sense of school membership between treatment arms. CBT vs. usual school mean difference = 0.42 (CI: −0.70‐1.55); CBT vs. attention control mean difference = 0.57 (CI: −0.65‐1.80).
Stelko‐Pereira & Williams, 2016 [53]	n = 71 students and 15 educators from grades 6–9 in Brazil; 21 students from intervention school and 50 from control school	Quasi‐experimental with school‐wise assignment to intervention and control groups and follow up at eight months	Violência Nota Zero is a Brazilian intervention designed to prevent violence and bullying that consisted of 12 weekly 90‐min meetings with teachers and school counselors. These meetings aimed to help educators use behaviors and activities that reduce violence. The program does not involve students as participants. SEM Levels: Organizational	School Engagement Survey, shortened by Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova (2006) and adapted for Brazil by Gouveia (2009)	School violence, general health	There were no significant differences between pre and post intervention school engagement, comparing both schools (z = −0.99, p = 0.30).
Stepanchak et al., 2022 [54]	n = 116 students in grades 6–8 in King County, United States	Pre‐ post‐intervention study with no control group; focus groups to understand student perspectives	Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) program is a program in which all students are screened for substance use, mental health concerns, and bullying; facilitator conducts a 15‐ to 20‐min brief intervention with the youth alone and with caregiver; students are referred to services and supports as needed. SEM Levels: Individual	4‐item measure adapted from Student Resilience Survey (Sun, 2007)	Substance use, anxiety, depressive symptoms, bullying, self‐harm, suicidal ideation, experience with intervention	Mean school connection scores increased significantly after participation in the school‐based intervention than at screening (5.9/8 vs. 7.0/8, p < 0.001) and the proportion of students responding “yes” to each of the items increased significantly (p < 0.001 for each).
Stjernqvist et al., 2018 [55]	n = 656 children within 8 schools and 30 classes with children aged 10–12 years in both suburban and rural Denmark	Quasi‐experimental with a three‐level cluster design and follow up at six months	“We Act ‐ Together for Health” was developed for Danish school children in grades 5–6. Its goal was to improve the dietary habits, physical activity, well‐being, and social capital among school children aged 10–12 years by increasing their health experiences and promoting a healthy school environment. The intervention included a school component, a health educational component, and a parental component. SEM Levels: Organizational, Interpersonal	WHO's ‘Health Behavior in School Children’ 2014 survey—9 questions from Danish contribution	Horizontal social capital, vertical social capital	A negative significant effect from the intervention was found on the children's probability of reporting a higher sense of belonging in the school at follow‐up (OR 0.54,95% CI = 0.37–0.79, p = 0.002).
Valente & Sanchez, 2022 [56]	n = 4030 5th and 7th grade students in 30 public schools in São Paulo	Two cluster randomized controlled trials (one for each grade) with classroom‐wise assignment and follow up at nine months	PROERD (Brazilian translation of DARE‐kiR) includes 10 weekly classroom drug prevention lessons conducted by trained police officers and guided by a student and teacher handbook. Each lesson contains 1–3 activities and lasted about 50 min. The police officers underwent an 80‐h training. SEM Levels: Individual	6‐item scale developed by the EU‐DAP	Intentions to use drugs, communication skills, decision‐making skills, attitudes towards drugs, intentions to use drugs, refusal skills	The intervention did not have an effect on school experience for fifth graders. For complete cases analysis of 7th graders, the intervention had a positive effect on school experience (coef = 0.093, 95% CI = 0.001–0.185, p = 0.048). It was not significant for the intention to treat analysis.
Weichold et al., 2012 [57]	n = 952 students in grades 5–7 in Germany	Quasi‐experimental with school‐wise assignment and two follow ups after booster sessions over three years	IPSY (Information + Psychosocial competence = Protection) is a comprehensive prevention program for alcohol and tobacco use, targeted at early adolescents. It's based on WHO's life skills approach and focuses on increasing knowledge, structuring leisure time, and improving attitudes towards school. The program is designed for Grade 5, with 15 45–90‐min lessons and 2 booster sessions (each 7 lessons) for Grades 6 and 7. SEM Levels: Interpersonal, Individual	Scale of Fend and Schur (1991)	Intra/interpersonal life skills, alcohol‐related measures	MANCOVA with dependent variables intra‐ and interpersonal life skills, knowledge, and school bonding revealed a significant main effect of time (F(24,682) = 2.76, p < 0.001)and group (F(12,694) = 3.88, p < 0.001). Students who took part in IPSY showed higher school bonding as compared with those in the control group (F(1,705) = 15.83, p < 0.001). Significant mean differences between intervention and control group for school bonding emerged from Time 2 or 3 onward.

Abbreviation: SEM, Social‐Ecological Model.

The studies cover a diverse sample of study populations from 12 countries and 4 continents. The student participants were between the ages of 10 and 20 years, with the majority (n = 23 studies) including students within the 12 to 14 age range. Additionally, the majority of the studies had a large sample, with most having over 100 participants (n = 20 studies) [34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57] and just under half of studies examined had over 1000 participants (n = 11 studies) [34, 36, 41, 42, 43, 46, 49, 50, 52, 54, 56]. Seven studies had a majority female study sample [35, 39, 40, 44, 47, 48, 53], with the remainder (n = 16) reporting a relatively even gender/sex distribution [34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57]. Study samples varied greatly in their racial and ethnic compositions, with 5 reporting a mix of ethnicities [35, 44, 45, 48, 54], 2 reporting a predominantly white sample [34, 52], 2 reporting a predominantly Black sample [39, 40], and 7 reporting a different predominant ethnicity [36, 38, 42, 43, 46, 50, 55]. The studies with a different predominant ethnicity took place outside of the United States and often corresponded to the predominant ethnicity within the country. It was common for studies to be conducted in low‐income areas or schools with a large number of students eligible for free and reduced lunch (n = 9) [34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 49, 51, 53].

Most study designs involved a control group (n = 20), of which 11 were cluster randomized controlled trials [34, 36, 39, 42, 43, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56] and the other 10 were quasi‐experimental studies [37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 45, 47, 53, 55, 57]. The other three studies used qualitative data and a pre‐post intervention design without a comparison group [35, 48, 54]. Two studies used a mixed methods design involving focus groups [54] or semi‐structured interviews [47] to supplement quantitative survey data.

The majority of the studies treated school connectedness as a secondary outcome rather than a primary outcome. The most common primary outcomes were bullying (n = 6 studies) [34, 36, 41, 44, 49, 52], substance use (n = 8 studies) [37, 42, 43, 46, 51, 52, 56, 57], and mental health (n = 7 studies) [40, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54].

3.2. Theoretical Foundations

Of the 24 studies examined, 17 cited specific theories that guided the design or choice of the intervention [34, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57]. Researchers used a variety of individual‐, interpersonal‐, and ecological‐level frameworks, with the most cited ones being social and emotional learning (n = 4) [39, 45, 50, 56], the World Health Organization's Health Promoting Schools framework (n = 4) [42, 43, 49, 55], positive psychology (n = 3) [40, 41, 50], and the ecological systems theory of Bronfenbrenner (n = 2) [34, 41].

3.3. Intervention Features

While all the studies measured students' level of school connectedness, two interventions—the IPSY program and Universal Prevention Curriculum—involved teachers and school staff as intervention participants, with the theory that the actions of school staff have a large impact on school climate.

Intervention strategies and activities . As depicted in Table 2, over half of the studies used a primary intervention strategy involving classroom‐based lessons or activities (n = 14 studies) [34, 37, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57]. A handful of interventions were not directly delivered by a facilitator and were instead project‐based (n = 2) [35, 36], facilitated by peer mentors (n = 1) [41], or involved one‐on‐one sessions with a professional (n = 1) [54]. The remaining used a combination of these strategies (n = 5) [38, 42, 43, 47, 49, 55]. The length and duration of lesson‐based interventions varied greatly. Many of these programs (n = 6 studies) included 10–15 weekly lessons that ranged from 15 to 90 min each [37, 40, 50, 53, 56, 57].

TABLE 2.

Characteristics of Interventions Targeting School Connectedness, Review of School Connectedness Interventions for Adolescents (January 2011–September 2023).

Variable	Number of interventions (n = 23)	Percent of interventions
Primary strategy
Schoolwide/project based	2	8.7
Interactive lessons/activities	14	60.9
Mentoring/one‐on‐one support	2	8.7
Combination of strategies	5	21.7
Method of delivery
Teacher or staff member	11	47.8
Researcher	6	26.1
Community professional	1	4.3
Peers/mentors	2	8.7
Trained facilitator	2	8.7
School staff or community professional	1	4.3
Common intervention strategies
Lessons	8	34.8
Skill‐building activities	6	26.1
Reflection activities	5	21.7
Mental well‐being activities	3	13.0
Peer‐led activities (mentoring, workshops, presentations, etc.)	5	21.7
Role plays, scenarios, or discussions	6	26.1
Creation of student teams or committees	3	13.0
Student‐led school assessments and problem‐solving	4	17.4
Implementation of student solutions	3	13.0

As shown in Table 1 and Figure 2, these interventions targeted various Social‐Ecological levels, from an individual's own behaviors (n = 16 studies) to interactions within social groups (n = 14 studies) and the broader school culture (n = 8 studies). More specifically, the most common intervention components were educational lessons and activities involving skill‐building (n = 7 studies) [45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 57] and role plays, scenarios, or discussions (n = 6 studies) [34, 37, 44, 47, 49, 50]. The next most common components were reflection exercises (n = 5 studies) [35, 44, 47, 50, 56] and peer‐led activities (n = 5 studies) [38, 41, 42, 43, 47, 55]. Finally, the remaining studies incorporated elements such as mental well‐being activities (n = 3 studies) [40, 48, 52], the creation of student teams or committees (n = 3 studies) [35, 36, 49], student‐led problem solving (n = 4 studies) [35, 36, 49, 55], and the implementation of student solutions (n = 3 studies) [35, 36, 55].

FIGURE 2.

Intervention Strategies Used to Increase School Connectedness by Social‐Ecological Level, Review of School Connectedness Interventions for Adolescents (January 2011–September 2023).

Delivery of interventions . The majority of the programs were implemented by a teacher or staff member at the school. The remaining programs were implemented by a member of the research team, community professionals (e.g., police officers), peer mentors, or an unspecified trained facilitator. As this review examined school‐based interventions, they all took place in a school setting. Lesson‐based interventions generally took place in the classroom during school hours, while mentoring and project‐based interventions often took place outside of school hours in a central meeting place. Some interventions took a whole‐school approach, in which changes were made throughout the school to improve the school climate and normalize healthy behaviors [49].

3.4. Measures of School Connectedness

Across the 24 studies, there were 20 different scales used to measure school connectedness (Table 3). The most frequently used scales were the Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale (n = 5 studies) and the Beyond Blue School Climate Scale (n = 2 studies). Both of these scales show adequate to high internal consistency reliability based on Cronbach's alpha, ranging from 0.60 to 0.91 [38, 44, 45, 48, 49, 58]. Many scales assessed a construct related to school connectedness but with a different label, such as school climate, student engagement, school attachment, sense of belonging, and school bonding. These constructs were operationalized to have a similar definition to school connectedness and thus are interpreted the same way for the purpose of this review.

TABLE 3.

Description of School Connectedness Measures Used in Included Studies, Review of School Connectedness Interventions for Adolescents (January 2011–September 2023).

Measurement scale	Construct assessed	Reported reliability & validity info	Countries	Studies using measure
Inventory of School Climate	School climate	Past studies: scales demonstrated good reliability (one‐year test re‐test ranged from 0.69 to 0.81; internal consistency ranged from an alpha of 0.70 to 0.76) Current study: all perceived climate scales had adequate internal consistency: Consistency and Clarity of Rules and Expectations, coefficient omega = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.68, 0.72]; Teacher Support, omega = 0.77, 95% CI [0.75, 0.78]; Positive Peer Interactions, omega = 0.76, 95% CI [0.74, 0.77]; and Student Input into Decision Making, omega = 0.75 95% CI [0.73, 0.77]	United States	Acosta J et al., 2019 [34]
School Connectedness Scale	School connectedness	The scale has shown good internal consistency in past studies (alpha =0.78; Anderman 2002). In the study data, coefficient omega was 0.81, 95% CI [0.79, 0.82]. The scale also has indicators that suggest its validity: It has been associated with measures of emotional well‐being, which is consistent with other research	United States	Acosta J et al., 2019 [34]
Semi‐structured focus group; questions include “In what way did your project affect the social and physical environment of your school?”	School connectedness and student engagement	N/A	Canada	Berg S et al., 2016 [35]
The Beyond Blue School Climate Scale	School climate	Shinde et al.: Cronbach's alpha overall = 0.91; alpha for subscales range from 0.82–0.89	Indonesia, India	Bowes L et al., 2019 [36]; Shinde S et al., 2018 [49]
Psychological Sense of School Membership Scale	School connectedness	Past studies: alpha = 0.77–0.88 Connolly RL et al.: comparable reliability of alpha = 0.86 was obtained Ingram KM et al.: Cronbach alpha of 0.60 for both pre‐ and post‐tests Miller CF et al. (adapted version of the Classroom Identification and Participation subscale): alpha = 0.82 at pretest and 0.84 at posttest and stability coefficient of 0.60 Stallard P et al.: High reliability (internal consistency α = 0.77–0.88 in past studies) (Stallard)	Australia, Canada, United States, United Kingdom	Chapman RL et al., 2013 [37]; Connolly J et al., 2015 [38]; Ingram KM et al., 2019 [44]; Miller CF et al., 2017 [45]; Stallard P et al., 2012 [52]
School Attachment subscale within School Climate Survey developed by the New Haven School Development Project	School attachment	alpha for subscale = 0.81 pretest and 0.63 for posttest	United States	Domitrovich CE et al., 2022 [39]
School Satisfaction Subscale of the Multidimensional Students' Life Satisfaction Scale	School satisfaction	The individual domains are valid as stand‐alone subscales and internal consistency of the subscale was reported at the minimum of 0.70	United States	Duthely LM et al., 2017 [40]
Spanish version of the school climate questionnaire	Sense of belonging	alpha = 0.75	Spain	Ferrer‐Cascales R et al., 2019 [41]
The Resilience and Youth Development module of the California Healthy Kids Survey	School support and meaningful participation	Environmental subscale: alpha = 0.77–0.88	Australia	Hodder RK et al., 2018 [42]; Hodder RK et al., 2017 [43]
Subscale from the School Liking and Avoidance Questionnaire	School connectedness	School liking alpha = 0.94 and stability coefficient = 0.65;	United States	Miller CF et al., 2017 [45]
Linzer Questionnaire of School and Class Climate	Class climate	Cronbach alpha of 0.684 (sufficient for group comparisons)	Germany	Schwager S et al., 2019 [47]
Six items adapted from the Psychological Sense of School Membership scale and the School Connectedness Scale	School connectedness	High internal consistency was reported for current study at pre‐test (alpha = 0.89) and post‐test (alpha = 0.88)	Australia	Seekis V et al., 2022 [48]
School engagement survey	School engagement	alpha for teachers' and students' reports at Times 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 0.86–0.90 for the emotional engagement scale, 0.78–0.87 for the behavioral engagement scale, and 0.87–0.92 for the cognitive engagement scale.	Israel	Shoshani A et al., 2016 [50]
3 questions culled from several school surveys: “In general, I like school a lot,” “I get along well with my teachers,” and “I don't feel like I really belong at school”	Positive school relationships	Reliability across all waves averaged alpha = 0.66	United States	Spoth R et al., 2019 [51]
School Engagement Survey, shortened version	School engagement	alpha = 0.89 from past studies	Brazil	Stelko‐Pereira & Williams, 2016 [53]
WHO's ‘Health Behavior in School Children’ 2014 survey — 9 questions from Danish contribution to this survey	School belonging	Cronbach alpha of 0.846	Denmark	Stjernqvist NW et al., 2018 [55]
6‐item scale developed by the EU‐DAP	School experience	In previous studies, Cronbach's alpha = 0.68–0.74	Brazil	Valente & Sanchez, 2022 [56]
Scale of Fend and Schur	School bonding	alpha = 0.76 at T1, 0.80 at T2, 0.81 and T3 and T4	Germany	Weichold K et al., 2012 [57]
Student Resilience Survey	School connection	Cronbach alpha of 0.89 in previous studies (Lereya et al., 2016)	United States	Stepanchak M et al., 2022 [54]
Students were asked how much they agreed with the following statements: “Students in my class like to be together”; “Most people in my class are kind and help you”; “The other students accept me as I am”; “I have a lot of respect for what teachers tell me”	School bonding	Cronbach alpha of 0.73	Peru	Paschall MJ et al., 2022 [46]

3.5. Assessment of Implementation Fidelity

Of the 24 studies, 13 reported on the degree to which the intervention was delivered as intended [34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55]. Many studies found anecdotal evidence that support and engagement from teachers and school administrators were associated with higher implementation fidelity [36, 37, 55]. Chapman et al. [37] emphasized the importance of holding training during contract hours based on records of attendance, and Seekis et al. [48] noted the importance of creating an intervention that is easy to implement.

Interventions can have varying levels of impact depending on the facilitator. For example, the SEHER program in India found that counselors' delivery of the intervention was more effective than teachers' because implementation was the counselors' primary responsibility, while teachers had other roles and responsibilities [49]. Conversely, the study on the Relationship Building Intervention found that teachers implemented the program as intended and kept students engaged in the lessons.

3.6. Intervention Effectiveness

Of the 24 studies examined, 11 found that the intervention had a positive effect on school connectedness [35, 38, 40, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 54, 57]. For the remaining 13 studies, two found that school connectedness had decreased following the intervention [37, 55]. Potential explanations cited by the authors for decreases in school connectedness include challenges with implementation, measurement, and student engagement. The 11 remaining studies found that the intervention did not have any effect (n = 7) [39, 42, 43, 46, 48, 52, 53], there were mixed effects (n = 2) [34, 56], or it had a positive effect that did not reach significance (n = 2) [36, 41].

4. Discussion

In this scoping review, we found a variety of intervention strategies aiming to increase school connectedness among adolescents, which primarily targeted the individual and interpersonal levels of the SEM. Many interventions were found to be effective at increasing school connectedness despite methodological limitations [35, 38, 40, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 54, 57]. Given that most interventions included school connectedness as a secondary target, it is promising that nearly half resulted in increased school connectedness. While classroom‐based lessons and activities were the most frequently used strategies, they are not the only strategies that show promise. Project‐based and peer‐led interventions also show promise by engaging students in problem‐solving and leadership [35, 36, 38, 41]. Among the strategies reviewed, mentoring programs and professional development for educators were the only strategies identified that were previously recommended by CDC [7], indicating an opportunity for expanding the menu of school connectedness strategies that schools can explore.

Regardless of the intervention type, greater student involvement and active learning appear essential for fostering school connectedness. While most strategies were classroom‐based, some strategies focused on peer mentoring and student‐led projects targeting the organizational level of the SEM, suggesting the feasibility of strategies that go beyond the classroom. We also found that there are various measures that can be used to assess school connectedness, though many give a different name to a similar construct. While each construct may vary slightly, they can still provide information about students' feelings towards school. Given the diversity in constructs and measures used to assess school connectedness, further research is needed to develop consensus on the definition of school connectedness [59].

4.1. Study Characteristics

We found that, in all of the studies, school connectedness was a secondary outcome rather than a primary outcome. This can be seen as a limitation since the interventions were not designed specifically to target school connectedness; however, as schools may prioritize outcomes such as substance use, mental health, and bullying when selecting an intervention, it is valuable to learn that certain intervention strategies can increase school connectedness despite not being the primary aim.

Our findings suggest that school connectedness interventions primarily target middle school students rather than high school students; this is what we would expect given that early adolescence is the age at which school connectedness starts to decrease. There was much variation in the precise age range targeted. Though it is important to foster school connectedness among early‐age adolescents, the limited studies with older adolescents may indicate a gap for future intervention research, given that loneliness and social isolation affect all age groups [19].

The interventions were implemented in a variety of countries with significant cultural differences. Given that this review aims to give a broad overview of interventions available, this diversity adds to the richness of our findings and gives context as to how interventions may need to be modified to be effective in other countries. For instance, Valente and Sanchez [56] suggest that translated programs may not be effective if they are not also culturally adapted. Thus, the diversity in studies can be valuable but must be considered before making generalizations about a program's effectiveness.

4.2. Ensuring Implementation Fidelity

To ensure interventions are implemented as intended, we found it essential that interventions have support from teachers and school administrators, especially when they are delivering it. Accordingly, it is encouraged that teachers receive training during contract hours and are supported throughout the implementation process. At the same time, training also needs to be thorough to ensure that school staff understand the issue and to enhance delivery. Furthermore, student acceptance is equally important and can be heavily influenced by the attitudes of teachers and administrators.

For interventions in the classroom setting, multiple studies emphasized the importance for the person implementing the program to have a good rapport with students [36, 37, 55]. For this reason, teachers can be ideal candidates if they are able to ensure proper implementation. Because they often lack the bandwidth or expertise [49], school staff can be a strong alternative since they understand the school context and may have more time to dedicate to delivering the intervention despite potentially having weaker rapport. Many studies ensured implementation fidelity by having a researcher or other trained facilitator deliver the content; this can be effective if a good rapport is established [36], but they may lack knowledge about the school context and may be cost prohibitive. Lastly, some interventions used peer‐led strategies. These are effective in that peers have the strongest influence among themselves but can be challenging due to their lack of expertise and authority [35, 38, 41]. Future research should consider further comparing the effectiveness of different types of intervention facilitators. While teachers and peers may have the greatest influence on students, delivery through an external organization may allow implementation fidelity to be better preserved.

4.3. Measuring School Connectedness

In terms of measuring school connectedness, we found that there are many different scales that can be used. Many are labeled as a different construct but still provide information regarding students' feelings about school. Further research would be required to determine the ideal measurement tool, which may also vary depending on the country and cultural differences. Multiple studies suggested that qualitative data was promising but was not supported by the quantitative results [39, 40, 45], which underscores the need for consistent operationalizations of school connectedness [59]. It is also possible that this was due to low sample sizes and the high attrition rates that some studies experienced [37, 53].

The studies were also limited in that most did not collect long‐term data, measures were self‐reported, and three studies did not include a comparison group. There was substantial variability in follow‐up periods, with most studies following students for less than a year after the intervention. These limitations make it difficult to rule out a social desirability bias, in which students select a desirable answer that may not reflect their true attitudes and behaviors. Furthermore, the absence of a comparison group for 3 of the 24 studies may increase threats to validity such as instrumentation, in which behavior is influenced by the participation in a pretest assessment, or maturation, in which school connectedness may change with age [60]. Future studies need longer follow‐up periods that include objective measures and a comparison group design to determine the long‐term effects of interventions on school connectedness and associated social and health outcomes.

4.4. Limitations

There are several limitations of this scoping review that should be acknowledged. While we had two reviewers, only one searched the databases, and the studies were not reviewed completely independently. A single reviewer made the primary decisions related to the inclusion or exclusion of articles; however, the second reviewer was consulted regularly throughout the process to help make final decisions. Additionally, as this was a descriptive study following the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework, there was no formal assessment of the strength of evidence. Despite this limitation, our identification of intervention strategies provides the foundation for systematic reviews to assess the strength of school connectedness interventions.

While we focus on the emotional facet in this paper, we recognize that school connectedness is a broad construct. Future research is needed to consider broader constructs related to school participation. As school connectedness was a secondary aim in most studies, future studies are also needed to explore interventions that target school connectedness as the primary aim; it is possible that more interventions would have had a positive effect if they were designed primarily to target school connectedness. Furthermore, while the diversity in locations of the studies is arguably a strength of this review, we recognize that cultural and organizational differences (e.g., school schedules) may directly influence school connectedness strategies, measures, and outcomes. However, we feel the inclusion of this diversity of studies is important for a scoping review to broaden our understanding of the various ways school connectedness has been targeted and measured. Lastly, our databases were limited to those used in a prior review [29], and we excluded gray literature and publications that were not peer‐reviewed. Thus, while we believe that we captured the breadth of evidence available, it is possible that some relevant studies were missed.

5. Conclusions

School connectedness has increasingly been shown to protect against adolescent risk behaviors while providing long‐term social, academic, and health benefits. Our scoping review highlights the breadth of strategies that have been used to increase students' feelings of school connectedness, along with other health‐related outcomes, among adolescents. As many strategies are classroom‐based and target students, there is opportunity for exploring further how school connectedness can be fostered at the organizational level of the SEM. This review also demonstrates the variety of ways that school connectedness can be defined and measured and the need for more consensus in this area. Importantly, to the authors' knowledge, this review is among the first to specifically identify and describe recent strategies aimed at increasing school connectedness among adolescents.

6. Implications for School Health Policy, Practice, and Equity

This review demonstrates that classroom‐based lessons and activities, project‐based interventions, and peer‐led interventions are promising strategies for increasing school connectedness among young people. Of the CDC‐recommended strategies, we only found evidence for mentoring programs and professional development for educators. As student‐led clubs and service‐learning opportunities hold promise, future research on these strategies is needed. Regardless of the strategy, schools should encourage active learning and support from school staff. Though future research is needed to determine the ideal facilitator, schools should consider their level of expertise and rapport with students.

Given that less than half of the interventions had a significant effect and most interventions were not designed solely to improve school connectedness, future studies focusing primarily on increasing school connectedness are needed. Research is also needed to determine the key components needed in interventions to foster school connectedness. The replication of these intervention strategies with greater implementation fidelity, larger sample sizes, comparison groups, and longer follow‐up may provide more evidence regarding their effectiveness. Future research should also aim to further define school connectedness given the wide variety of instruments used to assess the construct.

Human Subjects Approval Statement

Preparation of this paper did not involve primary research or data collection involving human subjects, and therefore, no institutional review board examination or approval was required.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Attri S. A., Springer A. E., and Kelder S. H., “A Scoping Review of School Connectedness Interventions for Adolescents*,” Journal of School Health 95, no. 10 (2025): 880–899, 10.1111/josh.70036.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.