Table 2.
Efficacy of school-based interventions on clinical samples targeting pupils only.
| Study | Country | Diagnosis | Type of program/FU | Sample size And group |
Measures/outcome | Result | Social outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hong, etal.2011 |
China |
Behavioral problems | Child Cognitive-behavioral intervention 6-month follow Up |
Treatment group TG (n = 208) Control group CG (n = 209) Age m=8 |
Child Behavior Checklist. (CBCL) Total Behavior Problem Scores |
(Assessed by Parents)
CBCL
Total behavior problem scores TG ↓ p = .024 TG ↓ p = .001 at 6-month follow up The levels of reported total behavior problems declined in response to the intervention and remained lower than those in the control group 6 months later |
CBCL: Social problem scale |
| Leff, et al.2009 |
United States | CD (Conduct problems) |
Culturally-adapted social problem solving/social skills
intervention No follow-up |
Intervention group TG (n = 21) Control Group CG (n = 11) Age m=12 |
The Children’s Social Behavior
Questionnaire (CSB) Measure of Hostile Attributional Bias (HAB) with cartoon-based version Asher and Wheeler Loneliness Scale Children’s Depression Inventory (ALS) |
(Assessed by Peer, Teachers and Clinicians)
CSB Teacher reports of relational aggression TG ↓ (moderate to large effect size of .74, Cohen, 1988) Teacher ratings of peer likeability TG ↑( very large effect size of 1.73, Cohen, 1988) HAB TG ↓ (very large effect size of .61, Cohen, 1988) ALS TG ↓ (moderate effect size of .45. Cohen, 1988 |
Peer nomination survey: relational aggression, physical aggression, peer liking hostile Attributions ALS CSB |
| Owens et al.2005 | United States |
ADHD Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ODD Oppositional defiant disorder CD Conduct problems DBD Disruptive Behavior Disorders |
Behavioral treatment intervention 9 months follow-up |
Treatment group TG (n= 30) Waitlist Control group CG (n= 12) Age m=8.5 |
Disruptive Behavior Disorders Structured Interview (DBD) Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Impairment Rating Scale (IRS) |
(Assessed by Parents and Teachers)
DBD Rating Scale,
severity of hyperactivity and impulsivity TG ↓ p < .05 oppositional defiant behaviour TG ↓ p < .05 impairment in their peer relationships TG ↓ p < .05 CBCL, aggressive symptomatology TG ↓ p < .10, externalizing behavior problems TG ↓ p < .05 CD symptoms TG ↓ p < .10 total behavior problems TG ↓ p < .10 |
DBD (peer relationships) IRS: Peers relation Sibling relation Parental relation CBCL: ratings Social |
| Cooper, etal. 2010 |
United Kingdom |
Emotional distress | School-based humanistic counselling intervention no follow-up |
Counselling group TG (n= 13) Waiting list group WL (n=14) Age m=14 |
The Self-Report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (The emotional symptoms subscale of the SDQ) |
(Assessed by Clinicians)
SDQ-ES ↔ |
SDQ-PS: prosocial subscale Secondary outcome: The Social Inclusion Questionnaire' (SIQ) |
| Mufson, et al.
2004 |
Unites States |
Depression/Anxiety |
Interpersonal psychotherapy intervention 16 week follow-up |
Treatment group IPT-A, TG (n=34) Treatment as usual TAU, CG (n=29) Age m=15.1 |
Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression
(HAMD) Children's global assessment scale (C-GAS ) Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) Social adjustment scale-self report (SAS-SR) |
(Assessed by Clinicians)
HAMD TG ↓ p=.04 and maintained at follow-up C-GAS TG ↑p=.04 (C-GAS trend to improvement at 16 weeks, p=0.06) CGI Global functioning TG ↑p=0.03 mean CGI scores (improvement) TG ↑p=0.03 At 16 weeks slight effect size in global functioning 0.51 (95% CI 0.003 to 1.02) SAS-SR social functioning mean TG ↑p=0.01 |
C-GAS: (interaction with friends) SAS-SR: social adjustment scale-self report |
| O'Leary-Barrett, et al.2013 | United Kingdom |
Depression, Anxiety, Conduct disorders |
Cognitive behavioral therapy intervention 2 years follow-up |
Treatment group TG ( n=694) Control group CG (n=516) Age m=13.5 |
The Substance Use Risk Profile Scale (SURPS) Brief symptoms Inventory (BSI) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (conduct subscale) |
(Assessed by Clinicians) SURPS « BSI depressive symptoms TG ↓ p<.05 (over two years) Suicidal ideation TG ↓ p<.02 (over two years) Anxiety symptoms TG ↓ p<.01 (over two years) Panic attacks « SDQ (conduct subscale) TG ↓ p=.01 (over two years) |
|
| Stallard et al.2012 | United kingdom |
Depression | Cognitive behavioural therapy 12 months follow-up |
Usual school inter-personal, social, and health education (PSHE) UG (n=298) Classroom based CBT group TG ( n=392) Attention control group CG (n=374) Age m=14 |
Short mood and feelings questionnaire (SMFQ) |
(Assessed by Clinicians) SMFQ« |
Secondary out.: Rev. child anx. and dep. Scale (RCADS) Social fobia scale |
| Stallard, et al.2013 | United kingdom |
Depression | Classroom based cognitive behavioural therapy 12 months follow up |
Usual school provision group UG (n=190) Attention control personal, social, and health education Interventions PSHE group CG (n= 179) Classroom-based CBT group TG (n=344) Age m=14 |
Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ) Cost-effectiveness: incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions score (EQ-5D) |
(Assessed by Clinicians) SMFQ « ICERs Costs of interventions per child £41.96 for classroom-based CBT; £34.45 for attention control PSHE. Fieller's method was used to obtain a parametric estimate of the 95% CI for the ICERs and construct the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, confirming that classroom-based CBT was not cost-effective in the case of controls. EQ-5D « |
Secondary outcomes: Revised child anx. and dep.scale (RCADS) School Connectedness subscale. CATS Social phobia subscale |
| s et al.2010 |
United States | Depression | Classroom based cognitive behavioural therapy 12 months follow-up |
Cognitive behavioural therapy group TG (n=78), Contrast treatment at usual CG (n=70) Age m=9,5 |
Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC) Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) |
(Assessed by Clinicians) MASC anxious symptoms TG and in CG ↓ P<.001 CDI depressive symptoms TG and in CG ↓ P<.001 |
MASC: The Social Anxiety scale Humiliation / Rejection subscale CDI: Interpersonal Problems Subscale |
| Gunlicks etal.2010 |
United States | Depression | Interpersonal psychotherapy for depressed adolescents week 12 follow-up |
Interpersonal Psychotherapy group (IPT-A) TG (n=31) Treatment as usual group (TAU) CG (n=32) Age m=15 |
Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) Conflict Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ-20) CBQ_Mother Social Adjustment Scale - Self-report (SAS-SR): |
(Assessed by Clinicians) HRSD(at week 12) TG ↓ p < .05 CBQ-20 ↔ SAS-SR ↔ |
SAS-SR Sub-scale: Friends, School,Family, Dating CBQ-20 |
| Rose et al2014 |
Australia | Depression | Manualized cognitive behavior Therapy and Interpersonal Psychotherapy group program (RAP) Manualized group Program basic social skills (PIR) 12-month follow-up |
CBT and Interpersonal Psychotherapy (RAP) TG1 (n=31) Placebo, exercises therapeutically inactive CG ( n=31) Social skills treatment group TG2 (PIR) (n=31) Age m=13.5 |
Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale Second Edition (RADS–2). Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) Psychological Sense of School Membership (PSSM) Clinical Assessment of Interpersonal Relations (CAIR) Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS) Clinician-administered, semistr. Interv.(DISCAP) |
(Assessed by Clinicians)
RADS–2 ↔ (TG1) TG2 ↓ p =.008 (no at follow-up) CDI ↔(TG1) TG2 ↓ p =.026 (not at follow-up) PSSM school connectedness TG2 ↑ p= .061) (not at follow-up) ↔(TG1) But no difference on follow-up between TG1 and TG2 MSLSS TG2 ↑ p = .061 CAIR ↔ DISCAP↔ |
PSSM CAIR CDI: Subscale interpersonal Problems |
| Tze-Chun Tang et al.2009 |
Taiwan | Depression | Interpersonal psychotherapy Intervention
(IPT-A) no follow-up |
Intensive interpersonal psychotherapy
TG (n=35) Treatment as usual (psychoeducation) (TAU) CG (n=328) Age m=15 |
Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) Beck Scale for Suicide (BSS) |
(Assessed by Clinicians)
BAI TG ↓ p < 0.05 BDI TG ↓ p< 0.001 BHS TG ↓ p < 0.01 BSS TG ↓ p < 0.01 |
|
| Chemtob et al. 2002 |
Hawaii | PTSD post traumatic stress disorders |
School-based screening and psychosocial treatment 1 year follow-up |
Group treatment
TG (n=124) Individual treatment CG (n=124) Age m=8.47 |
Kauai Recovery Inventory
(KRI) Child PTSD Reaction Index (CPTS-RI) |
(Assessed by Clinicians)
KRI TG ↑ p<.001 (maintained at follow-up) CPTS-RI TG ↓ p=.01 |
|
| Stein, etal.2003 |
United States |
PTSD
post traumatic stress disorders |
Child Cognitive-behavioral program |
Treatment
group TG (n=61) Control Group CG (n=65) (Age m=11) |
Child Ptsd Symptom Scale (CPSS) Child Depression Inventory (CDI) Parents report Psychosocial dysfunction Teacher-Child Rating Scale (TCRS) |
(Assessed by Clinicians, Parents and Teachers)
CPSS
TG ↓ p < 0.05 CDI TG ↓ p < 0.05 Parents report Psychosocial dysfunction TG ↓ p < 0.05 TCRS ↔ |
CPSS:
item relationships with friends and item relationships with family
CDI: Subscale interpersonal Problems Parents report Psychosocial dysfunction |
| Tol WA, et al.2010 | Sri Lanka | PTSD post traumatic stress disorders |
Manualized intervention of cognitive behavioral Techniques and creative expressive elements 3-month follow-up |
Treatment Group TG (n=199) Waitlist group CG (n=200) Age m=11.03 |
Child PTSD Symptom Scale (CPSS) Depression Self-Rating (DSRS) Screen for Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED-5) |
(Assessed by Clinicians ) PTSD ↔ DSRS ↔ SCARED-5 ↔ |
Secondary outcome: SDQ: Prosocial subscale |
| Kataoka et al.2011 |
United States |
PTSD post traumatic stress disorders |
Cognitive behavioral therapy skills intervention in a group format (5–8 students/group) |
Treatment Group TG (n=61) Waitlist group CG (n=62) Age m=11 |
Academic performance (math and language arts) grades were extracted from school records and coded as A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and F=0 for use as an outcome variable |
(Assessed by Teachers)
Math grade TG ↑ p=0.048)
Language Arts ↔ |
|
| Galla et al.2011 |
United States |
Anxiety | Modular Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Treatment 1-year follow-up |
Treatment group TG (n=14)
Control group CG (n=10) Age m=8.51, |
Child and Parent Versions (ADIS-C/P)
The Clinical Global Impressions Improvement scale (CGI-I) Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC-C) |
(Assessed by Clinicians and Teachers)
Follow-up data have been only reported TG ADIS-IV TG↓ p = .000 MASC-P TG↓ p = .006 MASC-C TG↓ p = .000 CGI ↔ |
MASC: The Social Anxiety scale Humiliation / Rejection subscale |
↔ no statistical significance was found.
↑ a statistically significant increase was found
↓a statistically significant decrease was found