Table 4 Study outcome measures, main findings and comments on study
Authors (year of study) | Mental health outcome measure(s) | Main findings | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
Bapat, Jorm and Lawerence [67] | SQ KQ ?V | Significant reduction in levels of stigma (p < .001); increase in knowledge about mental disorders (p < .01); increased confidence to help someone with mental disorder (p < .001) | Small sample size (n = 40); no control group; no effect sizes reported; no follow-up data |
Breslin et al. [37] | RIBS MAKS ?3 | Significant improvement for intervention group in comparison to control on mental health knowledge, confidence in ability to help someone, and intention to offer help to individuals with a mental health problem (all findings p < .001) | No randomisation method; no follow-up data; no effect sizes reported; intended behaviour was reported rather than actual behaviour |
Donohue et al. [68] | SCL-90-R BDI SARI TLFB RAB | Psychiatric functioning mean scores improved from baseline to post. Improved scores remained stable at 1- and 3-month follow-up; depressive mean scores decreased from baseline to post-intervention and remained stable at follow-up. Improvements were shown for all relationship domains | Small sample size (n = 7); no values provided for study effects (i.e. p value or effect); no control group |
Gulliver et al. [69] | ATSPPH-SF GHSQ AHSQ D-Lit A-Lit DSS GASS | No significant interaction effect for help-seeking attitudes, intentions or behaviour from baseline to follow-up. However, significant positive interaction effects were observed for depression (p < .05) and anxiety literacy (p < .01), and anxiety stigma (p < .05) from baseline to follow up relative to control group | Effect sizes for the significant positive interaction effects differed for treatment condition (literacy condition, feedback condition and help-seeking) in comparison to control, ranging from small to medium to large. Caution is advised when interpreting findings as the sample size was small |
Pierce, et al. [71] | ?1 ?2 | Leaders: Significant positive change in recognition of mental illness (p < .001), confidence that anti-depressant medication can be helpful (p < .01) and confidence in helping someone with mental health problem (p < .001). Players: no significant changes | Leaders: Small sample size (n = 36), no control group. Players: Unclear information on their attendance and involvement in the intervention. No effect sizes reported |
Longshore and Sachs [70] | MAAS TMS STAI PANAS BRUMS | No significant interaction effect reported for anxiety, mindfulness awareness or experience, or moods. A significant interaction effect was reported for a reduction in negative affect (p < .05, ES = .21) | Small sample size (n = 20). Despite largely non-significant results, mean scores showed positive trends, and effect sizes were generally small to moderate. Interviews with participants showed positive changes in coaches’ personal life and mindfulness |
Sebbens, et al. [29] | D-Lit A-Lit ?3 | A significant interaction effect was recorded for the intervention group in comparison to control on depression and anxiety literacy and confidence to help at time 2 (2 weeks post-intervention) (p < .001) but not at time 3 (4 weeks post-intervention) | No randomisation method; no effect sizes reported; intended behaviour was reported rather than actual behaviour |
Slack, et al. [72] | SGMT RSMT | Positive mean score changes were recorded for all three referees’ general and referee-specific mental toughness scores in the intervention phase in comparison to baseline | No values provided for study effects (i.e. p value); no control group; qualitative data strengthened the evaluation of program; referees’ performance increased |
Tester, Watkins and Rouse [73] | SCQ | Overall mean improvement of 44% (6–11-year olds) and 18% (12–16-year olds) in post-test scores in comparison to baseline for self-concept | No values provided for study effects (i.e. p value, effect size); no control group |
Van Raalte, et al. [74] | MHRES MHRK | Significant positive changes were observed for mental health referral efficacy (p < .001, ES = 0.1) and knowledge (p < .01, ES = .04) for the intervention group in comparison to control group | Intervention was tailored for the population. Qualitative data showed positive feedback for intervention acceptability |
Summary | Substantial heterogeneity in measures used to assess mental health knowledge (n = 4) and help-seeking intentions (n = 4) | Positive significant findings for all outcomes measured (n = 2); positive significant findings on at least one outcome measure (n = 7). Non-significant findings (n = 2). No statistical tests for significance (n = 3). Actual behaviour change for help-seeking (n = 0) | No control group (n = 5); small sample size (n = 4); randomisation (n = 2) |