CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49Early Childhood Education and DevelopmentSchool Health and Nursing EducationChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Targeted group-based interventions in schools to promote emotional well-being: A systematic review

Open access
Cheney, Gemma, Schlösser, Annette, Nash, Poppy, Glover, Lesley·2014·Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry
DOI 10.1177/1359104513489565
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The school environment offers significant opportunities to deliver psychological interventions to groups of young people in the UK. However, the nature and effectiveness of programmes are not consistently documented. This systematic review aimed to identify and examine group-based interventions delivered in UK schools. Sixteen papers describing eight interventions were included. It was found that nurture groups have an immediate positive impact on the social and emotional well-being of young people. Results from follow-up studies are less clear, and limited by a high level of sample attrition. The findings reported in relation to social and emotional aspects of learning, cognitive, behavioural and social skills based interventions were limited as each intervention is only evaluated by one paper. The review highlighted a need to implement well-designed, longitudinal studies with larger samples in order to evaluate which interventions are effective in UK schools.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1359104513489565

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Due to heterogeneity of design, meta-analysis of nurture groups was not possible and studies were examined for effectiveness qualitatively.

    “Due to heterogeneity of design, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis, and the studies were examined for effectiveness qualitatively.”

    From Interventions for Adolescent Mental Health: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (2016) · cites this paper as [20]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cheney, G., Schlösser, A., Nash, P., & Glover, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Hull (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-06-04
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
412-438
ISSN
  • 1359-1045 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7021
DOI
10.1177/1359104513489565
OpenAlex
W2128768041
Cited by
49
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
group intervention, school-based psychological intervention, emotional well-being, nurture groups, social and emotional aspects of learning, social skills intervention, behavioral interventions, youth, intervention effectiveness, sample attrition
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Emotions, Humans, Psychotherapy, Group, School Health Services, Students

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