Cited by 340Student Stress and CopingMental Health Treatment and AccessProblem Solving Skills Development

A meta-analysis of universal mental health prevention programs for higher education students

Conley, Colleen S., Durlak, Joseph A., Kirsch, Alexandra C.·2015·Prevention Science

Abstract

This meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of universal mental health prevention programs for higher education students on a range of adjustment outcomes. A systematic literature search identified 103 controlled published and unpublished interventions involving college, graduate, or professional students. As hypothesized, skill-training programs that included a supervised practice component were significantly more effective overall (mean effect size = 0.45, confidence interval (CI) = 0.39 to 0.52) compared to skill-training programs without supervised practice (0.11, CI = -0.01 to 0.22) and psychoeducational (information-only) programs (0.13, CI = 0.06 to 0.21). When comparisons on specific outcomes were possible, skill-training programs including supervised practice were significantly more effective than the other two groups of programs in reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and general psychological distress, and in improving social-emotional skills, self-perceptions, and academic behaviors and performance. The magnitude of effects achieved in several outcome areas is comparable to or higher than that reported in other reviews of universal programs, suggesting that skill-training programs for higher education students that incorporate supervised practice now join the ranks of other effective preventive mental health interventions. This review offers several recommendations to improve the experimental rigor of future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11121-015-0543-1

Cites

133 of 133 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 135 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conley, C. S., Durlak, J. A., & Kirsch, A. C.
Affiliations
Loyola University Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Conley, Colleen S.
Venue
Prevention Science
Published
2015-03-07
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
487-507
ISSN
  • 1389-4986 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6695
OpenAlex
W2064324224
Cited by
340
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Prevention Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Chicago
  • Loyola University Chicago
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Problem Solving Skills Development
Keywords
university students, skill development programs, supervised practice, psychoeducational intervention, depression, anxiety, stress, psychological distress, socioemotional skills, academic performance, self-perception
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Mental Disorders, Emotions, Humans, Mental Health, Students, Universities, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review