Rates of anxiety and depression are increasing among children and young people. Recent policies have focused on primary prevention of mental disorders in children and young people, with schools at the forefront of implementation. There is limited information for the comparative effectiveness of the multiple interventions available. We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for published and unpublished, passive and active-controlled randomised and quasi-randomised trials. We included educational setting-based, universal, or targeted interventions in which the primary aim was the prevention of anxiety and depression in children and young people aged 4-18 years. Primary outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation, or self-harm. We assessed risk of bias following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) using random effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. The study is registered with PROPSERO, number CRD42016048184. 1512 full-text articles were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56 620 participants were included. 20 studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was weak evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural interventions might reduce anxiety in primary and secondary settings. In universal secondary settings, mindfulness and relaxation-based interventions showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms relative to usual curriculum (SMD -0·65, 95% credible interval -1·14 to -0·19). There was a lack of evidence to support any one type of intervention being effective to prevent depression in universal or targeted primary or secondary settings. Comparison-adjusted funnel plots suggest the presence of small-study effects for the universal secondary anxiety analysis. Network meta-analysis was not feasible for wellbeing or suicidal ideation or self-harm outcomes, and results are reported narratively. Considering unclear risk of bias and probable small study effects for anxiety, we conclude there is little evidence that educational setting-based interventions focused solely on the prevention of depression or anxiety are effective. Future research could consider multilevel, systems-based interventions as an alternative to the downstream interventions considered here. UK National Institute for Health Research.

Teachers have been shown to have high levels of stress and common mental disorder, but few studies have examined which factors within the school environment are associated with poor teacher mental health. Teachers (n=555) in 8 schools completed self-report questionnaires. Levels of teacher wellbeing (Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale-WEMWBS) and depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-PHQ-9) were measured and associations between these measures and school-related factors were examined using multilevel multivariable regression models. The mean (SD) teacher wellbeing score (47.2 (8.8)) was lower than reported in working population samples, and 19.4% had evidence of moderate to severe depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 scores >10). Feeling unable to talk to a colleague when feeling stressed or down, dissatisfaction with work and high presenteeism were all strongly associated with both poor wellbeing (beta coefficients ranged from -4.65 [-6.04, -3.28] to -3.39 [-5.48, -1.31]) and depressive symptoms (ORs ranged from 2.44 [1.41, 4.19] to 3.31 [1.70, 6.45]). Stress at work and recent change in school governance were also associated with poor wellbeing (beta coefficients=-4.22 [-5.95, -2.48] and -2.17 [-3.58, -0.77] respectively), while sickness absence and low student attendance were associated with depressive symptoms (ORs=2.14 [1.24, 3.67] and 1.93 [1.06, 6.45] respectively). i) This was a cross-sectional study; causal associations cannot be identified ii) several of the measures were self-report iii) the small number of schools reduced study power for the school-level variables Wellbeing is low and depressive symptoms high amongst teachers. Interventions aimed at improving their mental health might focus on reducing work related stress, and increasing the support available to them.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The evidence base for the importance of the school environment for adolescent emotional health has never been systematically reviewed. We aimed to synthesize the evidence for the effect on adolescent emotional health of (1) interventions targeting the school environment and (2) the school environment in cohort studies. METHODS: Searches of Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, the Social Citation Index, and the gray literature were conducted. Criteria for inclusion were (1) cohort or controlled trial designs, (2) participants aged 11 to 18 years, (3) emotional health outcomes, and (4) school environment exposure or intervention. Relevant studies were retrieved and data extracted by 2 independent reviewers. RESULTS: Nine papers reporting 5 controlled trials were reviewed, along with 30 cohort papers reporting 23 studies. Two nonrandomized trials found some evidence that a supportive school environment improved student emotional health, but 3 randomized controlled trials did not. Six (20%) cohort papers examined school-level factors but found no effect. There was some evidence that individual perceptions of school connectedness and teacher support predict future emotional health. Multilevel studies showed school effects were smaller than individual-level effects. Methodological shortcomings were common. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that the school environment has a major influence on adolescent mental health, although student perceptions of teacher support and school connectedness are associated with better emotional health. More studies measuring school-level factors are needed. Randomized controlled trials evaluating 1 or 2 environmental components may have more success in establishing effective and feasible interventions compared with complex whole-school programs.

We need to understand the causes to inform prevention

There is a lack of consensus about whether self-harm with suicidal intent differs in aetiology and prognosis from non-suicidal self-harm, and whether they should be considered as different diagnostic categories. Participants were 4799 members of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), a UK population-based birth cohort who completed a postal questionnaire on self-harm with and without suicidal intent at age 16 years. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine differences in the risk factor profiles of individuals who self-harmed with and without suicidal intent. Many risk factors were common to both behaviours, but associations were generally stronger in relation to suicidal self-harm. This was particularly true for mental health problems; compared to those with non-suicidal self-harm, those who had harmed with suicidal intent had an increased risk of depression (OR 3.50[95% CI 1.64, 7.43]) and anxiety disorder (OR 3.50[95% CI 1.72, 7.13]). Higher IQ and maternal education were risk factors for non-suicidal self-harm but not suicidal self-harm. Risk factors that appeared specific to suicidal self-harm included lower IQ and socioeconomic position, physical cruelty to children in the household and parental self-harm. i) There was some loss to follow-up, ii) difficulty in measuring suicidal intent, iii) we cannot rule out the possibility of reverse causation for some exposure variables, iv) we were unable to identify the subgroup that had only ever harmed with suicidal intent. Self-harm with and without suicidal intent are overlapping behaviours but with some distinct characteristics, indicating the importance of fully exploring vulnerability factors, motivations, and intentions in adolescents who self harm.

The need for schools to support children and young people's mental and emotional health is increasingly emphasised in policy initiatives, yet the role of teachers in this has been under explored. This paper reports findings from qualitative, semi‐structured interviews with 14 school staff at eight secondary schools in England, examining emotional health and well‐being (EHWB) activities in which they were involved. Three emergent themes are discussed: (1) a strongly held belief that teaching and EHWB are inevitably linked; (2) a perception that many colleagues outside the study sample are reluctant to engage in EHWB work; and (3) a concern that teachers’ own emotional health needs are neglected, leaving them unable or unwilling to consider those of pupils. The findings endorse whole‐school approaches to emotional health, with a focus on teachers’ training and support needs and clearer aims, including consideration of how such work fits with the broader goals of schools.