A meta-analytic review of the Penn Resiliency Program's effect on depressive symptoms.
A meta-analytic review of the Penn Resiliency Program's effect on depressive symptoms.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0017671
复制
发表时间：
2009-12
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Kim ES
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brunwasser SM;Gillham JE;Kim ES
这篇综述的目的是评估宾夕法尼亚大学复原计划(PRP)，一种群体认知-行为干预，是否有效地针对青少年的抑郁症状。我们确定了17项关于PRP的对照评估(N=2498)，通过在线搜索JuncINFO、Medline、Eric和ProQuest的论文和论文，并从PRP研究人员那里获得数据，来衡量抑郁症状。我们结合了效应大小(Ess；Glass‘s d)，在干预后和两次后续评估中使用随机效应模型。与没有接受干预的年轻人相比，PRP参与者在干预后和两次后续评估中报告的抑郁症状较少，ESS从0.11到0.21。有限的数据显示，没有证据表明PRP优于主动控制条件。分组分析表明，当小组组长是研究小组成员和社区提供者、基线症状低和高的参与者以及男孩和女孩时，在使用定向和普遍方法的研究中，在一项或多项后续评估中，PRP的效果显著。初步分析表明，PRP对抑郁障碍的影响可能比一项针对老年青少年和成年人的抑郁症预防计划的更大规模的荟萃分析报告的结果要小。我们发现，有证据表明，PRP通过至少一年的干预后显著减少抑郁症状。未来的PRP研究应该检查PRP对抑郁症状的影响是否为其参与者带来临床上有意义的好处，该计划是否具有成本效益，CBT技能是否调节计划效果，以及PRP在现实世界条件下交付时是否有效。
The purpose of this review was to evaluate whether the Penn Resiliency Program (PRP), a group cognitive-behavioral intervention, is effective in targeting depressive symptoms in youth. We identified 17 controlled evaluations of PRP (N = 2498) measuring depressive symptoms via an online search of PsycInfo, Medline, ERIC, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and by requesting data from PRP researchers. We combined effect sizes (ESs; Glass’s d), using random effects models at post-intervention and two follow-up assessments. PRP participants reported fewer depressive symptoms at post-intervention and both follow-up assessments compared to youth receiving no intervention, with ESs ranging from 0.11 to 0.21. Limited data show no evidence that PRP is superior to active control conditions. Subgroup analyses showed that PRP’s effects were significant at 1 or more follow-up assessments among studies using 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. Preliminary analyses suggest that PRP’s effects on depressive disorders may be smaller than those reported in a larger meta-analysis of depression prevention programs for older adolescents and adults. We found evidence that PRP significantly reduces depressive symptoms through at least 1 year post-intervention. Future PRP research should examine whether PRP’s effects on depressive symptoms lead to clinically meaningful benefits for its participants, whether the program is cost-effective, whether CBT skills mediate program effects, and whether PRP is effective when delivered under real-world conditions.