Skip to main content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Lancet Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 Jun 23.
Published in final edited form as:
Lancet Psychiatry. 2014 Oct; 1(5): 377–387.
doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70312-8
PMCID: PMC4477835
NIHMSID: NIHMS685459
PMID: 26114092

Mental health interventions in schools 1

Mental health interventions in schools in high-income countries
Mina Fazel, Kimberly Hoagwood, Sharon Stephan, and Tamsin Ford
Author information Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer

Abstract

Mental health services embedded within school systems can create a continuum of integrative care that improves both mental health and educational attainment for children. To strengthen this continuum, and for optimum child development, a reconfiguration of education and mental health systems to aid implementation of evidence-based practice might be needed. Integrative strategies that combine classroom-level and student-level interventions have much potential. A robust research agenda is needed that focuses on system-level implementation and maintenance of interventions over time. Both ethical and scientific justifications exist for integration of mental health and education: integration democratises access to services and, if coupled with use of evidence-based practices, can promote the healthy development of children.

Introduction

Children spend more time in school than in any other formal institutional structure.1 As such, schools play a key part in children’s development, from peer relationships and social interactions to academic attainment and cognitive progress, emotional control and behavioural expectations, and physical and moral development. All these areas are reciprocally affected by mental health.

Increases in recognition of the effect of mental health problems on academic attainment, and the unique platform that schools can offer in access to and support for children and adolescents with psychological difficulties, has led to an expansion of school-based mental health interventions in high-income countries.

In this Review on school-based mental health interventions and services in high-income countries, and the accompanying Review by Fazel and colleagues2 in low-income and middle-income countries, we aim to contextualise and identify key areas for consideration and development of such services.3,4

In this Review we describe the salient issues in delivery of mental health services within school settings. Our overview is broad and includes examples of different interventions to illustrate types of provision. We summarise the epidemiology of psychiatric disorders in school-age children (aged 4–17 years) and describe specific school-related mental health issues. We discuss the range of mental health services delivered in schools because many different models exist with variations in professionals delivering the intervention, target groups, therapeutic modalities, and outcomes measured. We outline the restrictions of working within schools and challenges in implementation of evidence-based interventions in the school context. We conclude by emphasising the need to reconfigure both health and education services to better promote children’s learning and development.

Mental health of children and school-specific effects

Epidemiological studies

Findings from epidemiological studies of high-income countries show a point prevalence of 8–18% for psychiatric disorders in school-age children, although many more children will have lower but still impairing levels of psychological distress.5 Childhood psychiatric disorders are associated with educational failure,6 which in turn is associated with increased rates of psychiatric disorders7 and both are associated with a range of additional adverse outcomes, including risk-taking behaviour and being more likely to enter the criminal justice system.8–11 Children who are struggling with psychological symptoms do not form a discrete group; therefore, effective mental health interventions could improve outcomes for all children, not only those with clinically significant psychiatric morbidity, which underscores the potential benefits of universal interventions.12

The prevalence of psychiatric disorders varies with age.5 The most common difficulties in school-age children are disruptive behaviour and anxiety disorders. Separation anxiety and oppositional defiant disorder are seen mainly in primary school children (aged 4–10 years), whereas generalised anxiety, conduct disorder, and depression are more common in secondary school students (aged 11–18 years). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorders pose particular difficulties for children in the school environment, and the incidence of eating disorders and psychosis starts to increase rapidly from mid-adolescence onwards.

Childhood psychiatric disorders frequently persist.13 In the combined British Child and Adolescent Mental Health Surveys (unpublished, TF), half of children with a psychiatric disorder at baseline had a psychiatric disorder 3 years later. In the Great Smoky Mountain Study,14 36.7% of children had at least one disorder diagnosed by age 16 years, and those with a psychiatric disorder were three times more likely to have a disorder in subsequent studies in both childhood and adulthood.15 Similarly, large epidemiological studies in adults show that childhood psychiatric disorders persist into adulthood.8,16 Notably, conduct disorder, which is sometimes dismissed as outside the remit of child mental health services, was a predictor for all adult psychiatric disorders, including psychosis, in the Dunedin cohort.8 A 14-year prospective cohort study of adolescents in Australia13 showed the importance of interventions to shorten the duration of episodes of mental illness for prevention of substantial morbidity in later life.

Some school-specific factors are related to mental health during childhood. Bullying often takes place within the school context; a UK survey17 showed that 46% of school-aged children had been bullied. The odds of suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts are more than doubled in young people who report peer victimisation.18 Bullying can affect children into adulthood with increases in the prevalence of anxiety, depression, and self-harm.19

Poor relationships between teachers and pupils are a predictor of the onset of childhood psychiatric disorders20 and of low academic attainment.21 Policies associated with austerity in high-income countries reduce schools’ access to external support, while teachers report that stress resulting from disruptive behaviour is central to burnout and leaving the profession.22 The so-called burnout cascade,23 whereby difficulties with behavioural management can negatively affect teacher–pupil relationships and the classroom environment, might damage both teacher and child mental health.

Needs assessment and screening

Many professionals working with children advocate the use of a multiple-gated screening system to determine mental health need in schools. This screening includes the administration of assessments to a specified group (gate 1), school mental health professionals processing and interpreting the data to identify which students meet a predetermined cutoff (gate 2), and then interviewing or assessing students who meet that cutoff (gate 3).24 When done in the context of a multitiered system of support, assessment can include components that correspond with different types of interventions. For example, a school might complete a school climate scale (measures students’ or teachers’ perception of how the environment of classrooms and schools as a whole affects education) to select a universal intervention of school-wide character development, or might use a screening programme to identify children at risk of suicide.25 Schools use various methods to identify students who could benefit from interventions, including functional behavioural assessment, teacher or student nominations, and systematic screening. Screening poses the risk of over-identification of children (false positives) and failure to recognise a condition (false negatives).26,27 Provided these risks are managed, and if screening is done with standardised methods and by well trained staff, with the informed consent of children and caregivers and within the context of available service capacity for those who screen positive, this technique can provide a useful mechanism for schools to identify and support students with psychological disorders.26,28

Providers of mental health services in schools

Substantial differences exist between mental health services and educational services including professional qualifications gained, funding mechanisms, and the criteria by which a child’s eligibility for access to services and outcomes are judged. Conceptualisations of the same child can vary, such that a child with depression can be perceived to be failing academically, disengaged, or even cognitively impaired, or alternatively might be regarded as having poor motivation or low self-esteem.

Responsibility for the mental health of children in schools is shared across service sectors but varies between countries. Responsibility is affected by differences in cultures, aims, and the social structure of the health versus school systems. In the USA, for example, introduction of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act29 placed much of the responsibility for student mental health on the education system, at least for students whose mental health could be linked to educational success. However, even with evidence to support the positive effect of the use of school resources (eg, teachers30 and school counsellors31), many schools rely heavily on community mental health services that are administratively and geographically outside the school system.32,33

Mental health services in schools are provided by staff whose training or employment might be within education or health-care systems. A background in education could assist staff to manage the complex school culture, but education or school-employed staff often need to prioritise educational targets. They might argue that their specialised training in school-based approaches positions them better than their non-school-employed peers to meet both the mental health and educational needs of students. However, staff employed at schools are limited by school policies that restrict the type of services that they can provide, reducing their ability to meet specific needs or serve specific students. For example, because of funding and special education mandates, US school psychologists often spend much of their time undertaking routine psychological testing and eligibility assessments, rather than applying their broader consultative and intervention skills. In many countries, school-employed personnel work mainly with students who have educational difficulties that result from emotional and behavioural issues, and might not have had training in complex psychiatric presentations.

Community mental health professionals in schools work in a range of disciplines, including counselling, social work, occupational therapy, psychology, and psychiatry.34 Three broad models of integration are common: individuals from an outside agency are contracted to work within a school, the school includes a mental health clinic staffed by professionals who deliver mental health services, and the school has a health centre with mental health as a subspecialty. Counsellors and social workers are more likely to provide school-based mental health services than their psychology or psychiatry counterparts. In some countries, schools can partner with psychologists and psychiatrists to provide consultation and intervention for specific students with complex challenges, but this model is unlikely to be scalable in view of the global scarcity of child and adolescent psychiatrists. Telemedicine can increase the capacity of mental health services in schools, although successful models have additional on-site school mental health providers to support engagement and continuous psychosocial intervention. Some schools have recruited advanced nurse practitioners to manage the needs of students.35

Beyond traditional providers of mental health, the discipline has increasingly shifted towards inclusion of so-called natural supports, such as special education staff and school nurses. Improved training and support of staff within schools in this role is a coherent and practical model that seems feasible and sustainable from a resource perspective and in view of the expanding literature about the model’s effectiveness. Teachers are able to effectively identify mental health problems in students, making them good gatekeepers and referral sources for mental health care.36 Although teacher-implemented mental health promotion and prevention activities have a substantial effect on the psychosocial and academic performance of students, some models have been less effective than health-led interventions.37,38 However, because of the demands placed on teachers to support the academic success of their students, introduction of an additional role of supporting student mental health is less feasible unless teachers are given sufficient training and time to do these responsibilities.39 Models that integrate mental health promotion into the natural teaching context and incorporate coaching to increase a teacher’s belief in their own abilities should be further developed and assessed.

Mental health interventions in schools

An empirically derived approach to map intensity and type of school strategies to the needs of students has been used in parts of the USA.40 This tiered approach41 includes universal strategies for all students, followed by interventions to assist selected students who face particular risks, and finally a tier with treatment interventions for those with the greatest needs. An advantage of this public health and tiered approach is that schools and teachers can support students with varying needs and also create classroom and whole-school environments that support the learning of all children.

Schools in many high-income countries have long delivered public health education and services, such as immunisation programmes and health and sex education.42–44 Provision of mental health services in schools is quite new and mainly addresses the academic effect of mental health difficulties that are not being met by external mental health services. The specialty incorporates mental health promotion, prevention, and treatment. Many interventions address overlapping areas, showing the present movement towards multitiered systems of supports in which school mental health is delivered across a full continuum of care. The ultimate aim is to promote student wellbeing, prevent the development or worsening of mental health problems, and improve the effectiveness of education.45,46

Mental health promotion

Principles of school mental health promotion have been espoused since Plato’s Republic, in which he identified the importance of the school environment to children’s social development, noting that “by maintaining a sound system of education and upbringing, you produce citizens of good character”. Universal promotion of mental health programmes often focuses on constructs such as social and emotional skills, positive behaviours, social inclusion, effective problem solving, and good citizenry.47–49 A meta-analysis50 emphasised the academic benefits of mental health promotion in schools because schools with social emotional learning programmes had an average increase of 11–17 percentile points on standardised tests compared with scores from non-intervention schools.51 In whole-school and classroom-based interventions, universal promotion programmes are often delivered by the school’s own staff,36 and are done in both primary and secondary schools.52

An example is MindMatters, developed in the late 1990s. This approach is the leading national initiative for promotion of mental health in schools in Australia, with substantial national investment to equip schools and educators with skills to promote students’ wellbeing.53,54 Specific strategies to help students include social and emotional learning programmes, increasing students’ connection to school, building student skills in understanding and management of emotions, effective communication, and stress management. Teachers participate in various professional development opportunities to support their learning in these curricular domains. In the USA, programmes such as I Can Problem Solve,55 and the Good Behavior Game,56 have documented success in the short term and long term. Interventions to help behaviour management with whole-school or classroom-based programmes have increasing empirical support. For example, Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) offers a framework for multitiered interventions. Implementation of its primary prevention tier, which includes how to define, teach, and reward appropriate behaviour alongside a continuum of consequences for problem behaviour, was highly successful.57,58

Mental health prevention: a multitiered approach

Overview

Schools are an ideal setting for capturing the entire population of children, and therefore a three-tiered approach has become an accepted model for conceptualising the range of interventions to prevent students from developing psychiatric problems. The three components are universal, selective, and indicated interventions. Because early intervention can positively change the mental health trajectories for youth at risk of mental illness, many high-income countries are turning to this three-tiered model. Universal interventions target the whole school or classroom, selective interventions are targeted to population subgroups whose risk of developing a mental disorder is significantly higher than average, and indicated and treatment interventions target young people already exhibiting clinical symptoms.5 Indicated interventions overlap conceptually with mental health treatments and can include interventions for emotional disturbance,59 anxiety disorders,60 depression,61 and post-traumatic stress symptoms,62 in addition to substance misuse.63,64 Studies show that evidence-based treatments can be delivered in school settings, group models tend to be effective, and that engagement and participation rates tend to be high. However, few rigorous assessments have been done of school-based interventions for students with disabilities or for specific disorders, including eating disorders or complex neurodevelopmental disorders.65

Universal approaches

Universal approaches have particular appeal because they are the least intrusive, potentially incur the lowest cost, and therefore have the greatest chance of adoption in the school setting.66 Additionally, schools might prefer these approaches because they are easier than other approaches to incorporate into the structure of the school and do not exclude students who might potentially benefit from what is offered.67 However, because universal approaches are comprehensive, they can also be difficult to implement and need a concerted effort by administrative leadership and all school staff. Universal approaches have been studied for a broad range of presentations, including behavioural management, risky behaviours, and mood and anxiety disorders.68

A wide range of universal interventions have been tried in schools in children of various age ranges, and with various therapists and therapeutic modalities such as cognitive behavioural approaches (CBT) and stress reduction techniques. Several systematic reviews of CBT-based interventions in schools have been done,60,61,69,70 with a main focus on prevention of anxiety disorders60 and depression.61 The CBT-based interventions included many universal prevention programmes. For example, in a systematic review of anxiety disorders,60 investigators assessed 12 randomised controlled trials and recorded that the universal programmes had the largest effect sizes compared with selective and indicated programmes. However, the effect of these programmes on anxiety prevention was slight, with most averaging effect sizes (Cohen’s d) around 0.3 after intervention. For prevention of depression, 20 randomised controlled trials including more than 10 000 participants showed that universal interventions were less effective than selective and indicated programmes,61 leading to debate as to whether these programmes should be widely disseminated before more evidence is collected.71

One of the largest studies of universal interventions for prevention of depression was Beyondblue.72 This study showed that an Australian classroom CBT-based curriculum of 30 sessions delivered by teachers did not reduce levels of depressive symptoms in adolescents. This result might emphasise the difficulties faced in attempts to implement large-scale school-based universal interventions, with training of teachers in a new technique, and with engaging of adolescents in prevention programmes. Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies is a widely used intervention in primary schools73 and FRIENDS for Life is a ten-lesson programme, which has had variable success as a universal intervention for both anxiety and depression, although it was initially developed as a selective intervention.38,66 Some data suggest that children identified as at low risk of mental health problems might benefit more from the interventions than would those at higher risk.38,74 The Resourceful Adolescent Programme75 is another universal intervention that aims to develop adolescents’ self-esteem, conflict resolution, and stress management skills, with most studies showing a reduction in adolescent depression.

Selective approaches

In schools, several prevention efforts have been successful in addressing risk factors, including interventions to decrease substance misuse in adolescents who score highly on certain personality measures, suggesting an increased risk of problems with substance misuse.63 The interventions promote awareness of personality-associated cognitive distortions and alternative coping strategies, and ultimately reduce development of some problem behaviours. Prevention programmes are often delivered in classrooms or small groups—eg, the Coping Power Program76 for students at high risk of aggressive behaviours, drug misuse, and delinquency. An evidence base is also emerging for provision of school-based services to specific populations, such as young people from low-income urban regions,77 and refugees.78

Evidence for selective school-based prevention and early intervention programmes is strong for specific behavioural difficulties, for students with risks (such as parental divorce), and for students with anxiety or depressive disorders.60,61,79

Indicated approaches

Many studies have assessed indicated school-based programmes for anxiety or depression, deliberate self-harm, and post-traumatic stress disorder.61,62,80,81 Indicated programmes generally show stronger outcomes for depression and a greater reduction in symptoms of depression than universal or selective programmes do.61 Few evidence-based trials have been done of suicide prevention.82 Successful interventions to treat post-traumatic stress disorder include the ten-session Cognitive Behavioural Intervention In Schools for students with a history of exposure to potentially traumatic events.62

Community-based mental health treatment

Community-partnered school mental health services, delivered by staff employed in community-based agencies, often augment existing behavioural health supports for students. Consultation in mainstream schools by mental health specialists can assist with case conceptualisation, differential diagnosis, or considerations for community care. Some schools employ or have links with community-based partners to provide onsite individual, family, and group treatment for students with identified problems such as anxiety, depression, disruptive behaviour disorders, and traumatic stress. Intensive treatment often takes place during the school day, which can be more time efficient for both students and parents. Increasingly, school-employed staff are enhancing their capacity to deliver specialised mental health treatment for students. A study83 of interpersonal therapy given in school-based health centres showed that the therapy effectively treated adolescent depression. Additional service developments in schools include treatment of serious emotional disturbances84 and reduction of the duration of untreated psychosis.85

Special educational schools or classrooms (for children with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties) are at one end of the range of mental health needs in schools and are found to variable extents in high-income countries. Such establishments might have a high proportion of children with both treated and untreated mental illness. Alignment of these schools or classrooms with community mental health services is often needed, but not universally available.86

Gaps in school-based research and challenges in implementation

Research about school-based interventions has restrictions and these could obscure important effects (panel). These restrictions include a reliance on small studies, use of non-random designs, wide variation in outcome measures that might not be validated or educationally relevant, and difficulty in generalisation to other contexts because of factors unique to specific school settings. Furthermore, although understanding about the effectiveness of treatments is increasing, research of fidelity to these treatments when delivered and implemented in schools is scarce.87 Interventions need to be tested in real-world settings and embedded process assessments are important to identify facilitators and barriers in different school contexts.88 Many of these issues were emphasised in a systematic review89 about school-based psychosocial interventions for pupils with ADHD, which suggested that such interventions led to positive results on academic progress and core ADHD symptoms. However, the study methods varied, so the results did not allow practitioners to differentiate which aspects of what interventions were effective and therefore worth using. Additionally, no cost-effectiveness studies were done, thereby restricting the generalisability.90 The few cost-effectiveness studies available show methodological concerns about how to undertake such assessments and how to make them relevant and meaningful—eg, in the case of a universal classroom CBT-based intervention that showed no evidence of cost-effectiveness.91 Furthermore, when mental health interventions have been made available in the school context, they are often not accessed by the students. For example, although one study showed that an intervention was effective in treating symptoms of depression, more than 60% of eligible participants refused the intervention, possibly because of the legacy of stigma affecting mental health diagnosis and treatment, and perceptions of patients not needing or not thinking they can helped by services.25

Panel: Research gaps and service development priorities for mental health in schools

  1. Identification of mechanisms and processes to use to maximise effectiveness of interventions in schools, including
    • Universal screening methods and processes that promote early identification and reduce duration of untreated mental health problems
    • Identification of screening thresholds by which to select children to participate in interventions
    • Development of specific implementation strategies to improve uptake, fidelity, and continuous learning for people delivering mental health interventions
    • Development of measures that integrate health, mental health, and educational outcomes to show individual, family, peer, classroom, and system-level improvements
    • Comparative tests of optimum modes of delivery for specific interventions such as individual, group, classroom, and whole-school, as well as unifying elements of successful interventions
    • Determination of best age range for specific interventions and studies that target secondary school settings and special educational settings
  2. Research of interventions in schools for children with emerging or established mental health problems, including
    • Eating disorders
    • Self-harming behaviours
    • Neurodevelopmental disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism spectrum disorders
    • Psychosis
    • Bipolar disorders
  3. Development and assessment of young people and family peer models to promote engagement in schools
  4. Education and health interface for
    • Interdisciplinary research that promotes collaborative scientific inquiry between education, mental health, and health researchers
    • Development of new models for integration of health and mental health in schools
    • Use of digital technologies to aid implementation and monitor improvements in strategies
    • Development of quality indicators to link educational services to health services
    • Development of strategies, rather than programmes, which build on the naturally occurring ecologies within schools to strengthen skills and competencies around mental health identification and intervention
  5. Clarification of consent and confidentiality procedures to aid and accelerate research and clinical practice in schools

School-based services are unlikely to be a panacea for identification and treatment of all childhood mental illnesses. Some children do not attend school, might feel estranged from their school, or prefer to receive mental health services outside the school context. Agreement between parents, young people, and teachers about young people’s mental health and wellbeing is low in systematic studies,92 which probably relates to different frames of reference, true differences in functioning in different settings, and measurement error. Some young people might fear labelling and medicalisation if teachers have a prominent role in the detection of psychological distress; these issues need careful attention in training for teachers about mental health. Which presentations of illness and treatments are better suited for the school or community services are important questions to clarify. Additionally, not all interventions done in schools have produced positive results and the potential for adverse effects from psychological interventions should be acknowledged and monitored.93

Implementation of effective interventions in schools has many challenges, and these are beginning to be systematically catalogued.94 The scientific base for implementation is growing and being applied to mental health integration in schools.95–97 Development of the scientific base is important to avoid the typical trajectory of mental health practices in schools, commonly characterised by incomplete implementation, restricted sustainability, and narrow spread.98–100 Poorly assessed interventions are often used in schools, and when schools do use evidence-based interventions, they are often implemented with poor fidelity.101,102

Understanding of the classroom factors that can increase social-emotional functioning and academic success is now clearer than it was previously.103–105 Studies of classroom-based interventions are increasingly focused on either universal or selective strategies (eg, Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies106 and self-monitoring107), and studies suggest that improvement of the classroom context enables teachers to set positive behavioural norms, which, in turn, strengthens teacher–student interactions. Training and feedback can improve implementation of universal and selective interventions.108–112 Integrative studies that target structured support for the use of universal and selective interventions addressing both emotional–behavioural functioning and contextual factors are now emerging. This important dual approach is comprehensive, draws upon school staff, addresses educational and mental health issues, and improves implementation.

An integrative study that combines universal and targeted interventions is BRIDGE (bridging mental health and education in urban schools).113 A randomised trial of this intervention showed improved classroom-level and student-level outcomes. The strategies applied were empirically derived104,114–116 and tested in 36 urban secondary school classrooms—a challenging environment in view of the complex needs of the student population. This study showed improved relationships between teachers and students, student academic self-concept, and peer-reported victimisation. The hypothesised mechanisms of change targeted teacher–student interactions, with the aim to change the classroom norms and improve academic engagement.117,118

A common barrier to the implementation of evidence-based interventions in schools is poor engagement of all levels of school staff—ie, teachers, counsellors, and support staff.67,119 Additional barriers exist across individual (stigma, help-seeking behaviours, mental health status, parental risk factors), community (geographic and social location), and system (funding, waiting times, availability of trained personnel, and fragmentation of services) levels.120 Several factors affect implementation across these three levels, from the competing priorities of stakeholders involved (children, parents,121 school staff, educational authorities, and mental health services) to the focus of the intervention (whole school, classroom, teacher, family or screening, promotion, prevention, treatment) and the outcomes of interest (educational achievements, psychological measures, social functioning). Implementation science helps to advance the understanding of core organisation (culture, climate, leadership), classroom, and teaching practices that can impede or aid uptake of evidence-based interventions. The models to improve implementation are complex and multitiered, but manageable when systematic approaches are taken.122,123

A challenge for both research and practice will be to test strategies to implement and sustain integrated whole-school, classroom-level, and individual-level interventions. This strategy will require the development of interventions that are feasible, low burden, and can be easily integrated into routine school schedules. Consultation and training strategies that rely on resources already available within schools will be especially important.33,108,113 Research about the implementation and dissemination of integrative contextual approaches to mental health in schools can use theoretical models of implementation. The EPIS model (exploration, preparation, implementation, sustainability)123 identifies different implementation phases and aspects of the outer and inner context that are salient at different phases. This model can be especially useful for guiding of research because it explicitly acknowledges how different variables can play a crucial part at specific points in the implementation process. Similarly, lessons about implementation can be learnt from other successful public health programmes within schools.124

The application to school systems of methods to improve health-care quality is a promising approach. For example, Nadeem and colleagues125 identified 14 cross-cutting components as common factors in improvement of health-care quality including in-person learning sessions, phone meetings, data reporting, leadership involvement, and training in quality improvement methods. Similarly, cross-site learning, social networks,126,127 and harnessing of the expertise of key opinion leaders128 seem crucial, as do the commitment of leadership128 and promotion of team effectiveness.129 Implementation studies97,120 suggest that development of a multitiered system of support, in which there are in-built assessments to monitor progress and fidelity for selected interventions, is needed to obtain positive effects on children’s mental health.

Complex ethical considerations exist when working with children in schools. Mental health services have clear pathways and requirements to gain consent and inform caregivers.130,131 In schools, the services offered might be viewed as general school provision and individual consent for specific services might not be perceived as necessary. A child might see a school nurse or counsellor without parental knowledge or consent. Clear protocols are important to allow information sharing, which might prove beneficial to both academic and health outcomes, but privacy and confidentiality are essential to maintain therapeutic relationships.

Conclusion

Mental health services when embedded within educational systems create a continuum of integrative care that can promote health, mental health, and educational attainment. Strategies to integrate the different tiers of interventions within a school, and use of resources from within the school, are probably the most sustainable.

Service systems that support educational and mental health promotion, prevention, and treatment are administratively, legislatively, and politically separate.132 Education and health policies are progressively convergent on a set of quality indicators that, if enacted, can support a comprehensive continuum of services for children and families. These indicators include accountable care organisations, the meaningful use of data to improve quality, and pay-for-performance incentives to promote healthy behaviours. Many countries (eg, Australia, the UK, and the USA) have also had an increase in local control, which affects school mental health services in relation to competing demands. Tensions between mental health and other school priorities have prevented some schools and education services from placing resources in mental health provision. Agreement about which entity or organisation owns or is responsible for mental health services (schools vs the community) is a debate that is being replaced by models of shared ownership. These models include families, schools, and communities identifying evidence-based programmes and working together to establish a full continuum of services.133

Improved collaboration between education and health sectors would be enhanced by mutual contributions to basic professional training. At present, specific training for most mental health professionals to become familiar with the school context is scarce.134 Some practice guidelines have been developed,135 but opportunities for trainees to work closely with schools might increase appreciation of the school context and develop consultation-liaison skills.136 Standard teacher training programmes need to incorporate curricula targeted at the most common mental health issues likely to be present in schools. These curricula include mental health screening and identification of common presentations of mental health issues. Similarly, training teachers in mental health promotion skills might not only assist in identification and referral for children who need it, but also help teachers feel less overwhelmed by the emotional and behavioural challenges in their classrooms.40,120

Poor prioritisation of child and adolescent health and mental health restricts the positive possibilities of integrative services.137–139 Evidence that mental health is crucial for child development is clear, and schools are where children spend much of their time. Furthermore, economic analyses of British mental health-related service contacts show large costs to schools and special educational services that were greater than costs of mental health to other public sectors.140 Despite this high cost, the services typically did not include empirically supported therapeutic practices, suggesting that substantial time and resources could be redirected to evidence-based school interventions for mental health.

Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched the literature with Scopus to identify meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and narrative reviews about school-based mental health interventions published between Jan 1, 2000, and May 31, 2014, with no language restrictions. We used combinations of the search terms “mental health“ or “psych*”, and “school*“, and “intervention*“ or “service“ and “review“. This search identified 37 articles; we added further landmark studies and sought additional expert opinion to ensure the most relevant information was included. We used the Institute of Medicine framework to help categorise the range of different interventions that are undertaken in school settings.40 The framework differentiates between mental health promotion, prevention, and treatment, and although some interventions will span across these categories, we adhered to this framework. The interventions consist of a scale ranging from universal interventions that are mainly mental health promotion and prevention interventions, to more selective interventions for children at high risk of developing disorders. Interventions that are indicated target children with identified disabilities and include both prevention and treatment.40

The evidence base for the effectiveness of interventions to support positive gains in students’ social-emotional and academic outcomes is strong. The knowledge base of effective classroom interventions to improve teacher–student interactions and classroom behaviour is expanding. Integrative strategies that combine classroom-level and student-level interventions have potential to sustain educational, health, and mental health improvements for children. Future research should focus on system-level implementation and maintenance of these integrative interventions over time.

Both an ethical and a scientific argument exist for improving access for all children, irrespective of their income, to high quality mental health services.141,142,143 A population-based approach will ensure that young people can access preventive and treatment services whenever they are needed. Application of the evidence base can ensure quality, but public and political will are needed to ensure that the evidence base is successfully implemented universally.

Acknowledgments

MF received support from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health.

Footnotes

Declaration of interests

We declare no other competing interests.

Contributor Information

Mina Fazel, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, UK.

Kimberly Hoagwood, Department of Child Psychiatry, New York University Langone Medical Center and School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Sharon Stephan, Center for School Mental Health, Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Tamsin Ford, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Exeter Medical School, Veysey Building, Exeter, Devon, UK.

References

1. Rutter M, Maughan B, Mortimore P, Outsen J. Fifteen thousand hours: secondary schools and their effects on children. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA: 1979. [Google Scholar]
2. Fazel M, Patel V, Thomas S, Tol W. Mental health interventions in schools in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:388–98. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Zins J, Bloodworth M, Weissberg R, Walberg H. The scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school success. In: Zins J, Weissberg R, Wang M, Walberg H, editors. Building academic success on social and emotional learning: what does the research say? Teachers College Press; New York, NY: 2004. [Google Scholar]
4. Stephan SH, Weist M, Kataoka S, Adelsheim S, Mills C. Transformation of children’s mental health services: the role of school mental health. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58:1330–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Costello EJ, Egger H, Angold A. 10-year research update review: the epidemiology of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders: I. Methods and public health burden. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005;44:972–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Riglin L, Frederickson N, Shelton KH, Rice F. A longitudinal study of psychological functioning and academic attainment at the transition to secondary school. J Adolesc. 2013;36:507–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Trzesniewski KH, Donnellan MB, Moffitt TE, Robins RW, Poulton R, Caspi A. Low self-esteem during adolescence predicts poor health, criminal behavior, and limited economic prospects during adulthood. Dev Psychol. 2006;42:381–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Kim-Cohen J, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Harrington H, Milne BJ, Poulton R. Prior juvenile diagnoses in adults with mental disorder: developmental follow-back of a prospective-longitudinal cohort. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60:709–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Collishaw S, Maughan B, Goodman R, Pickles A. Time trends in adolescent mental health. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004;45:1350–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Whear R, Marlow R, Boddy K, et al. Psychiatric disorder or impairing psychology in children who have been excluded from school: a systematic review. School Psych Int. 2014;35:530–43. [Google Scholar]
11. Ramey CT, Ramey SL. In defense of special education. Am Psychol. 1998;53:1159–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Goodman A, Goodman R. Population mean scores predict child mental disorder rates: validating SDQ prevalence estimators in Britain. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2011;52:100–08. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Patton GC, Coffey C, Romaniuk H, et al. The prognosis of common mental disorders in adolescents: a 14-year prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2014;383:1404–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Copeland WE, Angold A, Shanahan L, Costello EJ. Longitudinal patterns of anxiety from childhood to adulthood: the Great Smoky Mountains Study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014;53:21–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Costello EJ, Mustillo S, Erkanli A, Keeler G, Angold A. Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60:837–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:593–602. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. DCSF Department for Children, Schools, and Families . Working together to safeguard children: a guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Department for Children, Schools, and Families, HM Government; Nottingham, UK: 2010. [Google Scholar]
18. van Geel M, Vedder P, Tanilon J. Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:435–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Meltzer H, Vostanis P, Ford T, Bebbington P, Dennis MS. Victims of bullying in childhood and suicide attempts in adulthood. Eur Psychiatry. 2011;26:498–503. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Lang IA, Marlow R, Goodman R, Meltzer H, Ford T. Influence of problematic child-teacher relationships on future psychiatric disorder: population survey with 3-year follow-up. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;202:336–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Cadima J, Leal T, Burchinal M. The quality of teacher-student interactions: associations with first graders’ academic and behavioral outcomes. J Sch Psychol. 2010;48:457–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Kokkinos CM. Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers. Br J Educ Psychol. 2007;77:229–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Jennings PA, Frank JL, Snowberg KE, Coccia MA, Greenberg MT. Improving classroom learning environments by Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE): results of a randomized controlled trial. Sch Psychol Q. 2013;28:374–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Walker H, Small J, Severson H, Seeley J, Feil E. Multiple-gating approaches in universal screening within school and community settings. In: Kettler RJ, Glover TA, Albers CA, Feeney-Kettler KA, editors. Universal screening in educational settings: evidence-based decision making for schools. American Psychological Association; Washington: 2013. pp. 47–75. [Google Scholar]
25. Gould MS, Marrocco FA, Hoagwood K, Kleinman M, Amakawa L, Altschuler E. Service use by at-risk youths after school-based suicide screening. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48:1193–201. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Goodman R, Ford T, Simmons H, Gatward R, Meltzer H. Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;177:534–39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Gould MS, Greenberg T, Velting DM, Shaffer D. Youth suicide risk and preventive interventions: a review of the past 10 years. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003;42:386–405. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Weist MD, Rubin M, Moore E, Adelsheim S, Wrobel G. Mental health screening in schools. J Sch Health. 2007;77:53–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. US Department of Education (IDEA) Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004. http://idea.ed.gov/ (accessed Sep 21, 2014)
30. Franklin CGS, Kim JS, Ryan TN, Kelly MS, Montgomery KL. Teacher involvement in school mental health interventions: a systematic review. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2012;34:973–82. [Google Scholar]
31. Cooper M. Counselling in UK secondary schools: a comprehensive review of audit and evaluation data. Couns Psychother Res. 2009;9:137–50. [Google Scholar]
32. Foster S, Rollefson M, Doksum T, Noonan D, Robinson G, Teich J. Center for Mental Health Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Rockville, MD: 2005. School mental health services in the United States, 2000–2003. [Google Scholar]
33. Atkins MS, Frazier SL. Expanding the toolkit or changing the paradigm: are we ready for a public health approach to mental health? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6:483–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Allen-Meares P, Montgomery KL, Kim JS. School-based social work interventions: a cross-national systematic review. Social Work (United States) 2013;58:253–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Grady BJ, Lever N, Cunningham D, Stephan S. Telepsychiatry and school mental health. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin. 2011;20:81–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Severson H, Walker H. Proactive approaches for identifying children at-risk for socio-behavioral problems. In: Lane KL, Gresham FM, O’Shaughnessy TE, editors. Interventions for children with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Allyn and Bacon; Boston, USA: 2002. [Google Scholar]
37. Kellam SG, Mackenzie AC, Brown CH, et al. The good behavior game and the future of prevention and treatment. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2011;6:73–84. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Stallard P, Skryabina E, Taylor G, et al. Classroom-based cognitive behaviour therapy (FRIENDS): a cluster randomised controlled trial to Prevent Anxiety in Children through Education in Schools (PACES) Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:185–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Shepherd J, Dewhirst S, Picknett K, et al. Factors facilitating and constraining the delivery of effective teacher training to promote health and well-being in schools: a survey of current practice and systematic review. Public Health Res. 2013:1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth, and Young Adults: research advances and promising interventions . In: Preventing mental, emotional and behavioural disorders among young people: progress and possibilities. O’Connell ME, Boat T, Warner KE, editors. National Academic Press (US); Washington, DC: 2009. [Google Scholar]
41. Nastasi BK, Moore RB, Varjas KM. American Psychological Association; Washington DC: 2004. School-based mental health services: creating comprehensive and culturally specific programs. [Google Scholar]
42. Mason-Jones AJ, Crisp C, Momberg M, Koech J, De Koker P, Mathews C. A systematic review of the role of school-based healthcare in adolescent sexual, reproductive, and mental health. Syst Rev. 2012;1:49. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Lima-Serrano M, Lima-Rodríguez JS. Impact of school-based health promotion interventions aimed at different behavioral domains: a systematic review. Gac Sanit. 2014 online publication June 9. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2014.05.003. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Hale DR, Fitzgerald-Yau N, Viner RM. A systematic review of effective interventions for reducing multiple health risk behaviors in adolescence. Am J Public Health. 2014;104:e19–e41. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Barret S, Eber L, Weist M. Advancing education effectiveness: interconnecting school mental health and school-wide positive behavior support. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports; University of Oregon, Eugene: 2013. [Google Scholar]
46. Lean D, Colucci V. School-based mental health: a framework for intervention. Rowman & Littlefield Education; Plymouth, UK: 2013. [Google Scholar]
47. Wells J, Barlow J, Stewart-Brown S. A systematic review of universal approaches to mental health promotion in schools. Health Educ. 2003;103:197–220. [Google Scholar]
48. Sklad M, Diekstra R, Ritter MD, Ben J, Gravesteijn C. Effectiveness of school-based universal social, emotional, and behavioral programs: do they enhance students’ development in the area of skill, behavior, and adjustment? Psychol Schls. 2012;49:892–909. [Google Scholar]
49. Schachter HM, Girardi A, Ly M, et al. Effects of school-based interventions on mental health stigmatization: a systematic review. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2008;2:18. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Payton J, Weissberg R, Durlak JA, et al. The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning; Chicago, IL: 2008. [Google Scholar]
51. Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB. The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Dev. 2011;82:405–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Cheyne G, Schlosser A, Nash P, Glover L. Targeted group-based interventions in schools to promote emotional well-being: a systematic review. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014;19:412–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Rowling L. School mental health promotion: MindMatters as an example of mental health reform. Health Promot J Austr. 2007;18:229–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Wyn J, Cahill H, Holdsworth R, Rowling L, Carson S. MindMatters, a whole-school approach promoting mental health and wellbeing. Aust NZ J Psychiatry. 2000;34:594–601. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Shure M. I can problem solve: an interpersonal cognitive problem-solving program for children. Research Press; Champaign, IL: 2001. [Google Scholar]
56. Embry DD. The good behavior game: a best practice candidate as a universal behavioral vaccine. Clin Child Fam Psych. 2002;5:273–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Horner R, Sugai G, Smolkowski K, et al. A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. J Posit Behav Interv. 2009;11:259–390. [Google Scholar]
58. Bradshaw CP, Koth C, Bevans K, Ialongo NS, Leaf P. The impact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychol Q. 2008;23:462–73. [Google Scholar]
59. Reddy LA, Richardson L. School-based prevention and intervention programs for children with emotional disturbance. Educ Treat Child. 2006;29:379–404. [Google Scholar]
60. Neil AL, Christensen H. Efficacy and effectiveness of school-based prevention and early intervention programs for anxiety. Clin Psychol Rev. 2009;29:208–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Calear AL, Christensen H. Systematic review of school-based prevention and early intervention programs for depression. J Adolesc. 2010;33:429–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Stein B, Jaycox L, Kataoka S, et al. Mental health intervention for schoolchildren exposed to violence. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290:603–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Conrod PJ, Castellanos-Ryan N, Mackie C. Long-term effects of a personality-targeted intervention to reduce alcohol use in adolescents. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011;79:296–306. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Gandhi AG, Murphy-Graham E, Petrosino A, Chrismer SS, Weiss CH. The devil is in the details: Examining the evidence for “proven” school-based drug abuse prevention programs. Evaluation Rev. 2007;31:43–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. McMillan JM, Jarvis JM. Mental health and students with disabilities: a review of literature. Aust J Guid Couns. 2013;23:236–51. [Google Scholar]
66. Stallard P. Mental health prevention in UK classrooms: The FRIENDS anxiety prevention programme. Emot Behav Difficulties. 2010;15:23–35. [Google Scholar]
67. Manassis K. Anxiety prevention in schools. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1:164–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Johnson MH, George P, Armstrong MI, et al. Behavioral management for children and adolescents: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65:580–90. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Kavanagh J, Oliver S, Lorenc T, et al. School-based cognitive-behavioural interventions: a systematic review of effects and inequalities. Health Sociol Rev. 2009;18:61–78. [Google Scholar]
70. Miller LD, Shumka E, Baker H. Cognitive behavioral therapy: applications, methods and outcomes. Nova Science Publishers, Inc; New York, USA: 2012. Special applications: a review of cognitive behavioral mental health interventions for children in clinical and school-based settings; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
71. Spence SH, Shortt AL. Research review: Can we justify the widespread dissemination of universal, school-based interventions for the prevention of depression among children and adolescents? J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007;48:526–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Sawyer MG, Pfeiffer S, Spence SH, et al. School-based prevention of depression: a randomised controlled study of the Beyondblue schools research initiative. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2010;51:199–209. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group The effects of a multiyear universal social-emotional learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010;78:156–68. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Merry SN, Hetrick S, Cox G, Brudevold-Iversen T, Bir J, McDowell H. Cochrane review: psychological and educational interventions for preventing depression in children and adolescents. Evid Based Child Health. 2012;7:1409–683. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Shochet IM, Dadds MR, Holland D, Whitefield K, Harnett PH, Osgarby SM. The efficacy of a universal school-based program to prevent adolescent depression. J Clin Child Psychol. 2001;30:303–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Lochman JE, Wells KC. The Coping Power program at the middle-school transition: universal and indicated prevention effects. Psychol Addict Behav. 2002;16:S40–54. (suppl) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Farahmand FK, Grant KE, Polo AJ, Duffy SN. School-based mental health and behavioral programs for low-income, urban youth: a systematic and meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol: Sci Pract. 2011;18:372–90. [Google Scholar]
78. Tyrer R, Fazel M. School and community-based interventions for refugee and asylum seeking children: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;2:e89359. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Castellanos N, Conrod P. Brief interventions targeting personality risk factors for adolescent substance misuse reduce depression, panic and risk-taking behaviours. J Ment Health. 2006;15:645–58. [Google Scholar]
80. Katz C, Bolton SL, Katz LY, Isaak C, Tilston-Jones T, Sareen J. A systematic review of school-based suicide prevention programs. Depress Anxiety. 2013;30:1030–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. De Silva S, Parker A, Purcell R, Callahan P, Liu P, Hetrick S. Mapping the evidence of prevention and intervention studies for suicidal and self-harming behaviors in young people. Crisis. 2013;34:223–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Ay P, Save D. Adolescent depression: progress and future challenges in prevention-control activities. Marmara Med J. 2004;17:47–52. [Google Scholar]
83. Mufson L, Dorta KP, Wickramaratne P, Nomura Y, Olfson M, Weissman MM. A randomized effectiveness trial of interpersonal psychotherapy for depressed adolescents. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61:577–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Vernberg EM, Roberts MC, Randall CJ, Biggs BK, Nyre JE, Jacobs AK. Intensive mental health services for children with serious emotional disturbances through a school-based, community-oriented program. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006;11:417–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85. McFarlane WR, Cook WL, Downing D, Verdi MB, Woodberry KA, Ruff A. Portland identification and early referral: a community-based system for identifying and treating youths at high risk of psychosis. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61:512–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86. Hackett L, Theodosiou L, Bond C, Blackburn C, Spicer F, Lever R. Mental health needs in schools for emotional, behavioural and social difficulties. Br J Special Edu. 2010;37:148–55. [Google Scholar]
87. Schoenwald SK, Garland AF. A review of treatment adherence measurement methods. Psychol Assess. 2013;25:146–56. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88. Neil AL, Christensen H. Australian school-based prevention and early intervention programs for anxiety and depression: a systematic review. Med J Aust. 2007;186:305–08. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89. Richardson M, Moore D, Gweman-Jones R, et al. Non pharmacological interventions for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) delivered in school settings: systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative research. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/1014002 (accessed Sep 21, 2014) [PMC free article] [PubMed]
90. Bywater T, Sharples J. Effective evidence-based interventions for emotional well-being: lessons for policy and practice. Res Pap Educ. 2012;27:389–408. [Google Scholar]
91. Anderson R, Ukoumunne OC, Sayal K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of classroom-based cognitive behaviour therapy in reducing symptoms of depression in adolescents: a trial-based analysis. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014 online publication May 12. DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12248. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92. Collishaw S, Goodman R, Ford T, Rabe-Hesketh S, Pickles A. How far are associations between child, family and community factors and child psychopathology informant-specific and informant-general? J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2009;50:571–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93. Stallard P, Sayal K, Phillips R, et al. Classroom based cognitive behavioural therapy in reducing symptoms of depression in high risk adolescents: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;345:e6058. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94. Spoth R, Guyll M, Redmond C, Greenberg M, Feinberg M. Six-year sustainability of evidence-based intervention implementation quality by community-university partnerships: the PROSPER study. Am J Comm Psychol. 2011;48:412–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95. Blase K, Fixsen D. Core Intervention Components: Identifying and operationalizing what makes programs work. US Department of Health and Human Services; Washington DC: 2013. [Google Scholar]
96. Fixsen D, Naoom S, Blase K, Friedman R, Wallace F. Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida; Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network, Tampa, FL: 2005. [Google Scholar]
97. Sugai G, Stephan S. Considerations for a school mental health implementation framework. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports; University of Oregon, Eugene: 2013. [Google Scholar]
98. Domitrovich C, Greenberg MT. The study of implementation: current findings from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children. J Educ Psychol Cons. 2000;11:193–221. [Google Scholar]
99. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:327–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100. Lendrum A, Humphrey N, Wigelsworth M. Social and emotional aspects of learning (SEAL) for secondary schools: implementation difficulties and their implications for school-based mental health promotion. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2013;18:158–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101. Hallfors D, Godette D. Will the ‘principles of effectiveness’ improve prevention practice? Early findings from a diffusion study. Health Educ Res. 2002;17:461–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102. Gottfredson D, Gottfredson G. Quality of school-based prevention programs: results from a national survey. J Res Crime Delinq. 2002;39:3–35. [Google Scholar]
103. Rimm-Kaufman S, Fan X, Chiu Y, You W. The contibution of the responsive classroom approach on children’s achievement: results from a three year longitudinal study. J School Psychol. 2007;45:401–21. [Google Scholar]
104. Allen JP, Pianta RC, Gregory A, Mikami AY, Lun J. An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science. 2011;333:1034–37. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
105. Rivers SE, Brackett MA, Reyes MR, Elbertson NA, Salovey P. Improving the social and emotional climate of classrooms: a clustered randomized controlled trial testing the RULER approach. Prev Sci. 2013;14:77–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
106. Domitrovich CE, Cortes RC, Greenberg MT. Improving young children’s social and emotional competence: a randomized trial of the preschool “PATHS” curriculum. J Primary Prevention. 2007;28:67–91. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
107. Mooney P, Ryan JB, Uhing BM, Reid R, Epstein MH. A review of self-management interventions targeting academic outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. J Behav Education. 2005;14:203–21. [Google Scholar]
108. Becker KD, Bradshaw CP, Domitrovich C, Ialongo NS. Coaching teachers to improve implementation of the good behavior game. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2013;40:482–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
109. Reinke W, Stormont M, Webster-Stratton C, Newcomer L, Herman K. The incredible years teacher classroom management program: Using coaching to support generalization to real-world classroom settings. Psychol Schls. 2012;49:416–28. [Google Scholar]
110. Hamre BK, Pianta RC. Classroom environments and developmental processes: conceptualization, measurement, & improvement. In: Meece J, Eccles J, editors. Handbook of research on schools, schooling and human development. Routledge; New York: 2010. pp. 25–41. [Google Scholar]
111. Mikami AY, Gregory A, Allen JP, Pianta RC, Lun J. Effects of a teacher professional development intervention on peer relationships in secondary classrooms. School Psych Rev. 2011;40:367–85. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
112. Raver CC, Jones SM, Li-Grining CP, Metzger M, Smallwood K, Sardin L. Improving preschool classroom processes: preliminary findings from a randomized trial implemented in Head Start settings. Early Child Res Q. 2008;63:253–55. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
113. Cappella E, Hamre BK, Kim HY, et al. Teacher consultation and coaching within mental health practice: classroom and child effects in urban elementary schools. J Consult Clin Psych. 2012;80:597–610. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114. Hamre BK, Pianta RC. Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Dev. 2005;76:949–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
115. Mashburn AJ, Pianta RC, Hamre BK, et al. Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Dev. 2008;79:732–49. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116. Pianta RC, Allen JP. Building capacity for positive youth development in secondary schools: teachers and their interactions with students. In: Shinn M, Yoshikawa H, editors. Toward positive youth development: transforming schools and community programs. Oxford University Press; New York: 2008. [Google Scholar]
117. Tseng V, Seidman E. A systems framework for understanding social settings. Am J Community Psychol. 2007;39:217–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
118. Seidman E, Tseng V. Changing social settings: a framework for action. In: Aber M, Maton K, Seidman E, editors. Empowering settings and voices for social change. Oxford University Press; New York: 2011. pp. 12–37. [Google Scholar]
119. Catalano RF, Fagan AA, Gavin LE, et al. Worldwide application of prevention science in adolescent health. Lancet. 2012;379:1653–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
120. Schwean V, Rodger S. Children first: it’s time to change! Mental health promotion, prevention and treatment informed by public health, and resiliency approaches. Can J School Psychology. 2013;28:136–66. [Google Scholar]
121. Mendez LR, Ogg J, Loker T, Fefer S. Including parents in the continuum of school-based mental health services: a review of intervention program research from 1995 to 2010. J Appl Sch Psychol. 2013;29:1–36. [Google Scholar]
122. Saldana L, Chamberlain P. Supporting implementation: the role of community development teams to build infrastructure. Am J Community Psychol. 2012;50:334–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
123. Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38:4–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
124. Pearson M, Chilton R, Woods HB, et al. Implementing health promotion in schools: protocol for a realist systematic review of research and experience in the United Kingdom (UK) Syst Rev. 2012;1:48. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
125. Nadeem E, Olin SS, Hill LC, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM. Understanding the components of quality improvement collaboratives: a systematic literature review. Milbank Q. 2013;91:354–94. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
126. Palinkas LA, Holloway IW, Rice E, Fuentes D, Wu Q, Chamberlain P. Social networks and implementation of evidence-based practices in public youth-serving systems: a mixed-methods study. Implement Sci. 2011;6:113–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
127. Nembhard IM. All teach, all learn, all improve?: The role of interorganizational learning in quality improvement collaboratives. Health Care Manage R. 2012;37:154–64. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
128. Wilson T, Berwick DM, Cleary P. What do collaborative improvement projects do? Experience from seven countries. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Safety. 2004;30(Suppl 1):25–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
129. Nembhard IM. Learning and improving in quality improvement collaboratives: Which collaborative features do participants value most? Health Serv Res. 2009;44:359–78. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
130. Evans S. Mental health services in schools: utilization, effectiveness, and consent. Clin Psychol Rev. 1999;19:165–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
131. Stein B, Jaycox L, Langley A, Kataoka SH, Wilkins WS, Wong M. Active parental consent for a school-based community violence screening: comparing distribution methods. J School Health. 2007;77:116–20. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
132. Burke R, Stephan S. Contextual features of public schools in the United States as settings for mental health promotion. Adv Schl Mental Health Promotion. 2008;1:52–60. [Google Scholar]
133. Hawkins JD, Oesterle S, Brown EC, Abbott RD, Catalano RF. Youth problem behaviors 8 years after implementing the communities that care prevention system: a community-randomized trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:122–29. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
134. Kreichman A, Salvador M, Adelsheim S. Expanding the vision: the strengths-based community-orientated child and adolescent psychiatrist working in schools. Child Adol Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2010;19:149–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
135. Walter HJ, Berkovitz IH. Practice parameter for psychiatric consultation to schools. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005;44:1068–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
136. Massachusetts General Hospital School psychiatry program, 2010. www.schoolpsychiatry.org (accessed 23 July, 2014)
137. Patton GC, Ross DA, Santelli JS, Sawyer SM, Viner RM, Kleinert S. Next steps for adolescent health: a Lancet Commission. Lancet. 2014;383:385–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
138. Sawyer SM, Afifi RA, Bearinger LH, et al. Adolescence: a foundation for future health. Lancet. 2012;379:1630–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
139. Wolfe I, Thompson M, Gill P, et al. Health services for children in western Europe. Lancet. 2013;381:1224–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
140. Snell T, Knapp M, Healey A, et al. Economic impact of childhood psychiatric disorder on public sector services in Britain: estimates from national survey data. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013;54:977–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
141. Gray JA. The shift to personalised and population medicine. Lancet. 2013;382:200–01. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
142. Viner RM, Ozer EM, Denny S, et al. Adolescence and the social determinants of health. Lancet. 2012;379:1641–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
143. Editorial Mental health and wellbeing in children and adolescents. Lancet. 2014;383:1183. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]