“终身之友”情绪健康方案:对处于危险中的人的不同影响。

IF 3.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Michael Wigelsworth, Margarita Panayiotou, Garry Squires, Karolina Byc
{"title":"“终身之友”情绪健康方案:对处于危险中的人的不同影响。","authors":"Michael Wigelsworth, Margarita Panayiotou, Garry Squires, Karolina Byc","doi":"10.1111/bjep.70005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence suggests that FRIENDS, a universal cognitive behavioural programme for schools, can improve children's emotional health, yet debate persists regarding its efficacy with respect to prevention versus treatment, particularly for children at risk of anxiety disorders.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the impact of FRIENDS across different risk categories by assessing: (a) changes in risk status resulting from intervention and (b) treatment effects within specific risk groups.</p><p><strong>Sample and methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial (ISRCTN13721202) conducted between 2016 and 2018 involving approximately 3000 pupils (aged 9-10) from 79 schools. Self-reported anxiety, depression and worry measures were collected at pre- and post-test. Risk categories were established using baseline anxiety and depression scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FRIENDS did not significantly change risk status, neither reducing risk (χ<sup>2</sup> (1) = 1.667; p =.797) nor preventing progression to higher risk categories (χ<sup>2</sup> (1) = .44; p =.507). Within risk categories, significant effects appeared only in the clinical risk group (β = 1.83 (SE = .14), d = .67), with no significant effects for borderline (β = 1.03 (SE = .98), d = .18) or normal (β = .03 (SE = .33), d < .01) categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While FRIENDS did not alter risk status, there appears treatment effects specifically for children within the clinical range for anxiety and depression. Findings provide a more nuanced understanding of who benefits from universal school-based interventions. Findings inform health and education professionals in balancing FRIENDS' treatment effects against factors like availability of alternative services, relative costs and sustainability.</p>","PeriodicalId":51367,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Educational Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The 'FRIENDS for Life' emotional health programme: Differential impact for those at risk.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Wigelsworth, Margarita Panayiotou, Garry Squires, Karolina Byc\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjep.70005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence suggests that FRIENDS, a universal cognitive behavioural programme for schools, can improve children's emotional health, yet debate persists regarding its efficacy with respect to prevention versus treatment, particularly for children at risk of anxiety disorders.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To examine the impact of FRIENDS across different risk categories by assessing: (a) changes in risk status resulting from intervention and (b) treatment effects within specific risk groups.</p><p><strong>Sample and methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial (ISRCTN13721202) conducted between 2016 and 2018 involving approximately 3000 pupils (aged 9-10) from 79 schools. Self-reported anxiety, depression and worry measures were collected at pre- and post-test. Risk categories were established using baseline anxiety and depression scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FRIENDS did not significantly change risk status, neither reducing risk (χ<sup>2</sup> (1) = 1.667; p =.797) nor preventing progression to higher risk categories (χ<sup>2</sup> (1) = .44; p =.507). Within risk categories, significant effects appeared only in the clinical risk group (β = 1.83 (SE = .14), d = .67), with no significant effects for borderline (β = 1.03 (SE = .98), d = .18) or normal (β = .03 (SE = .33), d < .01) categories.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While FRIENDS did not alter risk status, there appears treatment effects specifically for children within the clinical range for anxiety and depression. Findings provide a more nuanced understanding of who benefits from universal school-based interventions. Findings inform health and education professionals in balancing FRIENDS' treatment effects against factors like availability of alternative services, relative costs and sustainability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Educational Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Educational Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.70005\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Educational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.70005","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有证据表明,FRIENDS是学校的一项普遍认知行为计划,可以改善儿童的情绪健康,但关于其预防与治疗的有效性,特别是对有焦虑障碍风险的儿童,仍存在争议。目的:通过评估:(a)干预导致的风险状态变化和(b)特定风险群体的治疗效果,来检查FRIENDS对不同风险类别的影响。样本和方法:对2016年至2018年进行的一项聚类随机试验(ISRCTN13721202)的数据进行二次分析,该试验涉及来自79所学校的约3000名学生(9-10岁)。在测试前和测试后收集自我报告的焦虑、抑郁和担忧措施。使用基线焦虑和抑郁评分建立风险类别。结果:FRIENDS没有显著改变患者的风险状态,也没有降低风险(χ2 (1) = 1.667;P =.797),也没有阻止进展到高风险类别(χ2 (1) = .44;p = .507)。在危险类别中,只有临床危险组出现了显著影响(β = 1.83 (SE = 0.14), d = 0.67),边缘组(β = 1.03 (SE = 0.98), d = 0.18)和正常组(β = 0.03)无显著影响结论:虽然FRIENDS没有改变风险状态,但在临床范围内对儿童的焦虑和抑郁有明显的治疗效果。研究结果提供了一个更细致入微的认识,谁受益于普遍的学校干预措施。研究结果为卫生和教育专业人员提供了平衡FRIENDS治疗效果与可获得替代服务、相对成本和可持续性等因素的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The 'FRIENDS for Life' emotional health programme: Differential impact for those at risk.

Background: Evidence suggests that FRIENDS, a universal cognitive behavioural programme for schools, can improve children's emotional health, yet debate persists regarding its efficacy with respect to prevention versus treatment, particularly for children at risk of anxiety disorders.

Aim: To examine the impact of FRIENDS across different risk categories by assessing: (a) changes in risk status resulting from intervention and (b) treatment effects within specific risk groups.

Sample and methods: Secondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial (ISRCTN13721202) conducted between 2016 and 2018 involving approximately 3000 pupils (aged 9-10) from 79 schools. Self-reported anxiety, depression and worry measures were collected at pre- and post-test. Risk categories were established using baseline anxiety and depression scores.

Results: FRIENDS did not significantly change risk status, neither reducing risk (χ2 (1) = 1.667; p =.797) nor preventing progression to higher risk categories (χ2 (1) = .44; p =.507). Within risk categories, significant effects appeared only in the clinical risk group (β = 1.83 (SE = .14), d = .67), with no significant effects for borderline (β = 1.03 (SE = .98), d = .18) or normal (β = .03 (SE = .33), d < .01) categories.

Conclusion: While FRIENDS did not alter risk status, there appears treatment effects specifically for children within the clinical range for anxiety and depression. Findings provide a more nuanced understanding of who benefits from universal school-based interventions. Findings inform health and education professionals in balancing FRIENDS' treatment effects against factors like availability of alternative services, relative costs and sustainability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
2.70%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Educational Psychology publishes original psychological research pertaining to education across all ages and educational levels including: - cognition - learning - motivation - literacy - numeracy and language - behaviour - social-emotional development - developmental difficulties linked to educational psychology or the psychology of education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信