Evaluating the Impact of Aevidum on Mental Health Knowledge, Attitudes, and Help-Seeking Behaviors in High School Students: A Mixed-Methods Study.

PURPOSE: To compare Aevidum's school mental health curriculum vs the curriculum plus Aevidum clubs in a mixed-methods study including pre/post surveys, a randomized clinical trial, and qualitative interviews. DESIGN: Concurrent mixed-methods: Aim 1) pre-post surveys evaluated curriculum only vs curriculum plus club schools separately regarding changes in knowledge, help-seeking, and school culture; Aim 2) randomized clinical trial compared curriculum only to curriculum plus club schools; Aim 3) qualitative school staff interviews enhanced understanding of school culture changes. SETTING: Curriculum delivered to 9th graders at ten Pennsylvania high schools; 5 schools randomized to start clubs. SUBJECTS: Students (surveys), staff (interviews). INTERVENTION: Aevidum curriculum plus/minus club. MEASURES: Aim 1, mixed effects linear and logistic regression models for longitudinal data were used to analyze survey items at each time point. Aim 2, the same regression models were used, except models included a fixed-effect for group and group by time interaction effect. Aim 3, interviews were transcribed; a codebook was developed followed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Pre-survey 2557 respondents; 49% female, 86% non-Hispanic white. Post-survey 737 (29% response rate). Aim 1, pre-post (Likert responses, larger numbers favorable) demonstrated increased student knowledge to identify depression (4.26 [4.19-4.33] to 4.59 [4.47-4.71], P < .001) and help a friend access support (4.30 [4.21-4.38] to 4.56 [4.40-4.71], P = .001). Help-seeking increased for phone helplines (1.61 [1.57-1.66] to 1.78 [1.70-1.86], P < .001), crisis textlines (1.60 [1.55-1.64] to 1.78 [1.70-1.86], P < .001), internet/websites (1.80 [1.75-1.85] to 1.99 [1.90-2.08], P < .001), school counselors (P = .005) and teachers (.013). Aim 2, no significant differences in knowledge, help-seeking or culture between curriculum only vs curriculum plus club schools. Aim 3, staff (n = 17) interviews supported reduced stigma and increased mental health referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Aevidum's curriculum improved mental health knowledge and help-seeking; adding the club did not significantly change responses. Staff identified positive school culture impacts. Limitations include the lower post-survey response.

Evaluation of a stakeholder advisory board for an adolescent mental health randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Community engagement in research is widely accepted as best practice, despite gaps in existing frameworks to evaluate its process, context, and impact on research. The Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate, and Lower Depression (SHIELD) study evaluated the use of a school-based major depressive disorder screening tool in the identification of symptoms and treatment initiation among adolescents, and was developed, implemented, and disseminated in partnership with a Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB). We summarize outcomes of the evaluation strategy applied through our partnership with the SAB and explore gaps in the available engagement evaluation tools for mixed stakeholder populations including youth. METHODS: SHIELD study SAB members (n = 13; adolescents, parents, mental health and primary care providers, and professionals from education and mental health organizations) advised on study design, implementation, and dissemination over a three-year period. Both SAB members and study team members (i.e., clinician researchers, project managers) were invited to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate stakeholder engagement after each project year. At the conclusion of the study, SAB members and study team members were asked to evaluate the application of engagement principles in overall stakeholder engagement across the study period, using portions of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). RESULTS: SAB members and study team members responded similarly when evaluating engagement process (i.e., valued on team, voice represented); means ranged from 3.9 to 4.8 out of 5 points across all three project years. Reported engagement within study-specific engagement activities (i.e., meetings, study newsletter) varied from year to year, with some discrepancy between SAB member and study team evaluations. Using REST, SAB members reported the alignment of their experience with key engagement principles the same or higher than study team members. Qualitative feedback at the conclusion of the study generally matched quantitative measures; adolescent SAB members, however, reported disengagement from stakeholder activities that was not accurately or effectively captured in evaluation strategies employed across the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges exist in effectively engaging stakeholders and evaluating their engagement, particularly among heterogenous groups that include youth. Evaluation gaps should be addressed through the development of validated instruments that quantify the process, context, and impact of stakeholder engagement on study outcomes. Consideration should be given to collecting parallel feedback from stakeholders and study team members to fully understand the application and execution of engagement strategy.

We conducted a study (Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate, and Lower Depression) to understand if an adolescent major depressive disorder screening tool delivered in the school setting aided in the identification of symptoms and treatment. We planned and conducted this study with the guidance of a stakeholders, including adolescents.At the end of each study year, we sent an evaluation survey to stakeholders to understand their experience, such as how appropriately the study included stakeholders and their perspectives. We also surveyed the team leading the study to understand their perspectives about stakeholder involvement. In general, both stakeholders and the study team reported feeling positive about stakeholder involvement; However, some stakeholders felt less involved as the study moved forward, and for some activities stakeholders and study team did not agree on how much the stakeholders were involved in study activities. Additionally, adolescent stakeholders reported low involvement in the study when completing the final evaluation, which, unfortunately, was not captured in the evaluations conducted in earlier study years.By evaluating the experiences of stakeholders, along with gathering perspectives of the study team, we were able to understand how well we involved stakeholders. However, additional questions remain unanswered, such as how best to involve adolescents as stakeholders, and how involving stakeholders impacted the results of our study. Evaluation tools to best understand these impacts are needed across the field of community-engaged research to answer these questions for future studies.

A qualitative analysis of participant experiences with universal school-based depression screening.

Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate and Lower Depression (SHIELD) was a randomized clinical trial of school-based universal depression screening conducted with public high schools in Pennsylvania, United States. Screened adolescents were twice as likely to initiate depression treatment compared to peers who were not screened. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand the experience of communities participating in universal screening via SHIELD. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with school staff (n = 11), parents (n = 4) and adolescents (n = 7) from April-October 2021. A codebook was developed with 20 % of audio transcripts coded for inter-rater reliability (staff k = 0.88, parents k = 0.90, adolescent k = 0.74). The two coders divided and individually coded remaining transcripts for thematic content analysis. Three themes were identified: 1) Depression screening was well-received; 2) The main challenge with screening was inadequate staffing to manage referrals; and 3) School staff suggested alternate formats and methods for future screening. In summary, school-based depression screening was well-received, but schools experienced challenges with staffing and resources to support identified adolescents and offered alternative suggestions for future screening. Schools interested in depression screening need education and capacity building focused on barriers and challenges with the process. Learning from staff who have realized this evidence-based practice in their respective districts will support next steps towards implementation.

Insights on COVID-19, School Reopening Procedures, and Mental Wellness: Pilot Interviews With School Employees.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused interruptions to the K-12 US school landscape since spring 2020. METHODS: In summer 2020, we completed a pilot study utilizing interviews (n = 13) with school staff (ie, nurses, educators) from across the United States. We aimed to understand the status of school operation and re-entry plans after the primary period of school closure, along with resources needed for students and staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: All interviewees described their school's re-entry plan as complete or in-development. Ten plans included strategies to meet students' mental health needs. Only 3 clearly planned for staff mental health resources. Interviews suggest gaps in planning and execution of mental health resources for school staff, a group already vulnerable to stress, anxiety, and burnout. IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH: Several school staff mental health resources were developed as a result of the pandemic, though ongoing impacts necessitate integration of these supports into school operation plans. This is particularly important as schools continue to navigate periods of altered operation in response to elevated community COVID-19 infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: As schools implement strategies to support students, similar consideration should be given to the adults in the school environment who teach and support school-aged children.

Adolescent Suicide Risk Screening: A Secondary Analysis of the SHIELD Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of adolescent suicide risk screening to increase initiation of mental health services via a secondary analysis using data from the SHIELD (Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate and Lower Depression) randomized clinical trial, which evaluated school-based screening for major depressive disorder (MDD). STUDY DESIGN: Students in 14 Pennsylvania high schools were randomized by grade to either the usual school practice of targeted referral for behavior raising a concern for suicide risk or universal screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), with any response >0 to item 9 regarding suicide risk considered positive. Students identified in either arm were referred to the Student Assistance Program (SAP), which is mandated in all Pennsylvania schools. The SAP determined follow-up. Study groups were compared using mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: The participants comprised 12 909 students, with 6473 (50.1%) randomized to universal screening. The study group was 46% female and 43% Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black. Adolescents in the universal screening arm had 7.1-fold greater odds (95% CI, 5.7-8.8) of being identified as at risk for suicide, 7.8-fold greater odds (95% CI, 4.6-13.1) of follow-up needs, and 4.0-fold greater odds (95% CI, 2.0-7.9) of initiating mental health treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although the PHQ-9 is a MDD screening tool, its use in universal screening increased identification and treatment initiation for adolescents at risk for suicide. This confirms the value of universal screening and suggests that a suicide-specific risk assessment would have even greater impact on treatment initiation for identified youth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03716869.

Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate, and Lower Depression Among Adolescents: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) prevalence has nearly doubled in the past decade. The US Preventive Services Task Force endorses universal adolescent MDD screening in primary care; however, most adolescents lack preventive health care, resulting in worsening disparities in MDD screening and treatment. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of universal adolescent MDD screening in the school setting in an effort to reduce disparities and improve MDD identification and treatment initiation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial, conducted from November 6, 2018, to November 20, 2020, compared the usual school practice of targeted or selected screening based on observable behaviors of concern with universal MDD screening. Students within an identified school were randomized by grade to 1 of the 2 study groups. Study groups were compared using mixed-effects logistic regression. Participants included students in grades 9 through 12 enrolled at 1 of the 14 participating Pennsylvania public high schools. Interventions: In targeted screening, students with behaviors prompting concern for MDD were referred to the Student Assistance Program (SAP), mandated in all Pennsylvania schools. The SAP determined follow-up recommendations. In universal screening, all students completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); students with positive scores proceeded to SAP. The universal screening group could also have targeted referral to SAP for concerning behavior independent of the PHQ-9. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was initiation of MDD treatment or services based on data collected by school SAP teams during the academic year. Results: A total of 12 909 students were included (median age, 16 years [range, 13-21 years]; 6963 male [53.9%]), of whom 2687 (20.8%) were Hispanic, 2891 (22.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, 5842 (45.3%) were non-Hispanic White, and 1489 (11.5%) were multiracial or of other race or ethnicity. A total of 6473 students (50.1%) were randomized to universal screening, and 6436 (49.9%) were randomized to targeted screening. Adolescents in the universal screening group had 5.92 times higher odds (95% CI, 5.07-6.93) of being identified with MDD symptoms, 3.30 times higher odds (95% CI, 2.49-4.38) of SAP confirming follow-up needs, and 2.07 times higher odds (95% CI, 1.39-3.10) of initiating MDD treatment. No differences were identified in initiation for planned subgroup analyses by sex or race and ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, universal school-based MDD screening successfully increased identification of MDD symptoms and treatment initiation among adolescents, confirming the value of this approach to address this rising public health concern. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03716869.

"I wouldn't even know what to do," Adolescent and Parent Perspectives on Identifying, Understanding, and Seeking Help for Adolescent Depression.

Within the context of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of school-based depression screening, the study objective was to understand parent and adolescent perspectives on school-based depression screening and barriers to help-seeking for adolescent depression. From May-Nov. 2019, separate focus groups were held with adolescents (8 groups, n = 52) and parents (6 groups, n = 36). Two coders individually coded 20% of transcripts to establish interrater reliability (adolescent k = 0.76 and parent k = 0.80). Remaining transcripts were then separately coded and reviewed to develop three themes: (1) Both recognized depression as a serious issue that needed to be addressed in schools, but had confidentiality and communication concerns; (2) Both parents and adolescents believed the majority of adolescents would seek help with depression from friends more than any other source; and (3) Neither adolescents nor parents could clearly describe steps to take if their peers (adolescents) or adolescents (parents) were depressed. We intend to address identified barriers and concerns in the context of the larger RCT.

Effectiveness of Universal School-Based Screening vs Targeted Screening for Major Depressive Disorder Among Adolescents: A Trial Protocol for the Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate, and Lower Depression (SHIELD) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The prevalence of annual major depressive disorder (MDD) episodes among adolescents in the United States rose from 8.3% in 2008 to 12.8% in 2016. Despite the US Preventive Services Task Force 2009 endorsement and 2016 reaffirmation of universal adolescent MDD screening in primary care, many adolescents are missed, as more than 60% lack annual preventive health visits and MDD screening remains inconsistent. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of universal school-based screening for adolescent MDD vs the existing process of targeted screening based on observable behavior. Design, Setting, and Participants: Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate, and Lower Depression (SHIELD) is a randomized clinical trial that will take place in at least 8 Pennsylvania public high schools among at least 9650 students enrolled in 9th through 12th grade. Students will be randomized by grade to either targeted screening (current process) or universal screening (intervention). Students in the targeted screening arm will complete mandated school health screenings, which do not include an MDD screening. These students will be observed through the academic year for referral to the Student Assistance Program (SAP), required in all Pennsylvania schools. If a student exhibits behavior concerning for MDD raised by any contact (eg, teacher, parent, peer, or self-referral), SAP will triage the student and provide follow-up recommendations. Students in the universal screening arm will complete the validated Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) from September through December of the academic year. The PHQ-9 includes 9 close-ended questions and is scored from 0 to 27. Students with a positive result (ie, score >10) will proceed to SAP triage. Students in the intervention arm will also be observed for behavior concerning for MDD during the school year, potentially prompting SAP triage referral. The primary outcome will be the proportion of adolescents referred to SAP triage who are recommended for additional MDD-related services and successfully engage with at least 1 SAP recommendation. Observers will not be blinded to patient groups, and an intention-to-treat analysis will be used. Discussion: The SHIELD trial began with 3 schools during the 2018-2019 academic year. Screening in the intervention arm with the PHQ-9 is currently underway for the remaining schools, with a goal of completion of all PHQ-9 screenings by December 2019. This trial addresses the US Preventive Services Task Force call for large, high-quality randomized clinical trials to better understand the effects of MDD screening and quantify the proportion of adolescents with screen-detected MDD successfully referred and treated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03716869.