ABSTRACT
Mental health is a significant concern among young people, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, mental health problems can significantly reduce student performance in school, including both engagement and achievement. Both mental health problems and reduced student performance often arise due to peer victimization, which can include teasing, racial- or gender-based discrimination, and/or physical assault. Stress has been proposed as one mechanism through which victimization influences mental health, and stress can also interfere with academic performance at school, including engagement and achievement. To date, however, no research has evaluated longitudinal associations between victimization and stress, and how these longitudinal patterns may impact adolescent behavior and mental health. In this study, we used data from a 2-year cluster randomized trial of cooperative learning to evaluate an etiological process model that includes (1) longitudinal reciprocal effects between victimization and stress, and (2) the effects of both victimization and stress on student mental health and academic engagement. We hypothesized that victimization and stress would have significant reciprocal effects, and that both would predict greater mental health problems and lower academic engagement. We further hypothesized that cooperative learning would have significant effects on all constructs. We found partial support for this model, whereby stress predicted greater victimization, but victimization did not predict increased stress. While both factors were linked to student outcomes, stress was a more powerful predictor. We also found significant salutary effects of cooperative learning on all constructs. The implications of these results for student behavioral and mental health are discussed.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: More than 4 decades of research indicate that parenting interventions are effective at preventing and treating mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders in children and adolescents. Pediatric primary care is a viable setting for delivery of these interventions. OBJECTIVE: Previous meta-analyses have shown that behavioral interventions in primary care can improve clinical outcomes, but few reviews have been focused specifically on the implementation of parenting interventions in primary care. We aimed to fill this gap. DATA SOURCES: We reviewed 6532 unique peer-reviewed articles published in PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycInfo. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if at least part of the intervention was delivered in or through primary care; parenting was targeted; and child-specific mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes were reported. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were reviewed in Covidence by 2 trained coders, with a third coder arbitrating discrepancies. RESULTS: In our review of 40 studies, most studies were coded as a primary. Few researchers collected implementation outcomes, particularly those at the service delivery system level. LIMITATIONS: Including only published articles could have resulted in underrepresentation of implementation-related data. CONCLUSIONS: Parenting interventions delivered and implemented with fidelity in pediatric primary care could result in positive and equitable impacts on mental, emotional, and behavioral health outcomes for both parents and their children. Future research on the implementation strategies that can support adoption and sustained delivery of parenting interventions in primary care is needed if the field is to achieve population-level impact.