Search

Screening for psychological distress may assist in identifying at-risk adolescents. While several measures of adolescent psychological distress have been used, most have limited or suboptimal psychometric properties. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Distress Questionnaire-5 (DQ5), a brief measure of psychological distress, in a large community-based sample of adolescents. Data for the study (n = 3117) were drawn from the baseline and 6-week follow-up assessments of the Future Proofing Study, which collected data from three cohorts of Year 8 students (M = 13.9 years; 48% female) between August 2019 and May 2022. Participants completed the DQ5 at each measurement occasion, as well as measures of depression, generalised and social anxiety, and suicidal ideation. The DQ5 had good fit to a unidimensional construct, with standardised factor loadings ranging between 0.69 and 0.90. The scale had strong criterion (AUC ranged from 0.84 to 0.93) and predictive (AUC ranged from 0.81 to 0.87) validity when compared against indicators for depression, generalised anxiety, social anxiety and suicidal ideation. The DQ5 cut-point of ≥14 had 80% sensitivity and 90% specificity for identifying adolescents meeting symptom thresholds for any of the assessed mental health conditions. Changes in DQ5 scores over 6 weeks had moderate associations with changes in other symptom scales, suggesting sensitivity to change. In conclusion, the DQ5 demonstrates strong psychometric properties and is a reliable measure of psychological distress in adolescents. Given its brevity and ease of interpretation, the DQ5 could be readily used in schools to screen for psychological distress in students. • Measures of adolescent psychological distress have suboptimal psychometric properties. • The Distress Questionnaire-5 (DQ5) is a 5-item measure of psychological distress. • We tested the measurement properties of the DQ5 in a longitudinal adolescent sample. • The DQ5 was unidimensional, with strong criterion and predictive validity. • The DQ5 may be used for school-based screening and measuring intervention response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Depression and anxiety are often first experienced during childhood and adolescence, and interest in the prevention of these disorders is growing. The focus of this review was to assess the effectiveness of psychological prevention programs delivered in schools, and to provide an update to our previous review from five years ago (Werner-Seidler, Perry, Calear, Newby, & Christensen, 2017). Three electronic databases were systematically searched for published articles of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of school-based prevention programs until October 2020. There were 130 articles that met inclusion criteria, representing 118 unique trials and 45,924 participants. Small between-group effect sizes for depression (g = 0.21) and anxiety (g = 0.18) were detected immediately post-intervention. Subgroup analyses suggested that targeted prevention programs (for young people with risk factors or symptoms) were associated with significantly greater effect sizes relative to universal programs for depression, which was confirmed by meta-regression. There was also some evidence that external providers conferred some benefit over school-staff delivered programs. Overall, study quality was moderate and no association between risk of bias and effect size was detected. School-delivered psychological prevention programs have small effects in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety. Refinement of these programs, and knowledge about how they can be sustainably delivered in schools beyond the trial period is now needed for population-level preventive effects. Systematic Review Registration Number: PROPSERO - CRD42020188323 • This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of school-based psychological prevention on depression and anxiety. • 118 RCTs were identified involving >45,000 participants. • These interventions had a small effect on depression and anxiety symptoms. • Targeted programs may be more effective than universal programs. • Schools are a suitable environment to deliver prevention programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]