Interventions to build resilience among young people A literature review

Author/
year
Topic of
review
No. reviewed
studies
Settings
Methods used in
reviewed studies
Outcome variables
Findings/conclusions
Type of
review
Year range of
studies
Quality
score
Participant
age range
Total number
of
participants
community relations’, ‘personal skills
building’ and ‘partnership & health
services’
Students’ depression symptoms
Brunwasser
et al.
(2009)
Penn
Resiliency
Program’s
(PRP) effect on
depressive
symptoms
Meta-analytic
5 (Moderate)
17
1994–2008
8–18 years
2,498 youths
(4,408 targeted
and 1,884
universal)
Schools
Mental health
organisations
Most studies included some
form of random assignment
either at participant,
classroom or school level
Mix of no intervention and
active control comparisons
Three studies provided data
at baseline and postintervention
only, while
others evaluated
intervention effects up to 3
years post-intervention
Depression symptoms (16 of 17 studies
used CDI – Kovaks, 2001)
PRP participants reported fewer
depressive symptoms at postintervention
and both follow-up
assessments compared with
youths receiving no intervention,
with ESs ranging from 0.11 to
0.21.
Subgroup analyses showed that
PRP’s effects were significant at 1
or more follow-up assessments
among studies with both
targeted and universal
approaches, when group leaders
were research team members
and community providers, among
participants with both low and
elevated baseline symptoms, and
among boys and girls.
Limited data showed no evidence
that PRP is superior to active
control conditions.
Preliminary analyses suggested
Interventions to build resilience among young people: a literature review 55