Non-randomized feasibility study evaluates a health-promoting intervention's effects on adolescent well-being.
Background Positive mental health refers to a state of well-being in which children and young people realize their own abilities, learn to cope with the everyday stresses of life, develop a positive sense of identity, learn to manage thoughts and emotions, build social relationships, and acquire education that fosters active citizenship. There is a need for a stronger evidence base regarding mental health promotion to address mental health issues in the young generation. To further help bridge this gap, this study compared and evaluated a universal health-promoting intervention facilitated by Student Health Care Teams (SHCTs) for Grade 12 students at two schools, and assessed its effects on students' self-reported well-being, resilience, strengths and difficulties, and mental health. Furthermore, the study aimed to qualitatively evaluate the intervention from students’ and facilitators’ perspectives. Method This non-randomized feasibility study used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (MRC), which exploratory compared pre- and post-outcomes between boys and girls, and qualitative, deductive content analysis to make sense of the data. Comparisons between the experimental ( n = 44) and control groups ( n = 41) were made in terms of several self-reported measurements: the WHO-5, a short and generic global rating scale, which measures psychological well-being as the primary outcome; the Resilience Scale (RS); strength, which is measured by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ); and mental health, which is measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Furthermore, there were nine focus group interviews (42 students in 5 groups; 10 SHCT members in 4 groups). Results Controlling for pre-intervention values (WHO-5, RS, HADsA, HADsD, and SDQ), the intervention increased the OR scores of the girls above post-intervention values on the WHO-5 (OR = 9.0; 1.4–56). The intervention did not improve the OR of higher scores in boys during follow-up (OR = 0.1; 0.09–1.4). Students and SHCTs generally found the intervention feasible. Conclusion Girls appeared to benefit more from the intervention than boys, suggesting a need for gender-specific approaches. Despite time demands, school health teams valued the model for supporting interprofessional, school-based health promotion. However, larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kristiansen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: