A systematic review of reviews of interventions to promote mental health and prevent mental health problems in children and young people

Background: There is a growing policy imperative to promote positive mental health as well as preventing the development of mental health problems in children. This paper summarises the results of published systematic reviews evaluating interventions to promote mental health and prevent mental illness in children. Method: A search was undertaken of ten electronic databases using a combination of medical subject headings (MeSH) and free text searches. Systematic reviews covering mental health promotion or mental illness prevention interventions aimed at infants, children or young people up to age 19 were included. Reviews of drug and alcohol prevention programmes or programmes to prevent childhood abuse and neglect were excluded because these have been the subject of recent good quality reviews of reviews. Critical appraisal of all studies was undertaken using a standardised appraisal tool for systematic reviews. Where possible effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals are reported. A narrative summary has been provided. Results: A total of 27 systematic reviews were included and grouped pragmatically under the following headings: parenting interventions; programmes for the prevention of anxiety and depression, programmes to promote self esteem, violence and aggression prevention programmes, school-based programmes, and general reviews. Included studies targeted a range of risk and protective factors, and a range of populations (including both parents and children). While, many lacked methodological rigour, overall, the evidence is strongly suggestive of the effectiveness of a range of interventions in promoting positive mental well-being, and reducing key risk factors for mental illness in children. Conclusion: A variety of programmes have been shown to be effective in promoting children’s mental health, albeit with modest effect sizes. Based on this evidence, arguments are advanced for the preferential provision of early preventive programmes

Children's computation of complex linguistic forms: a study of frequency and imageability effects.

This study investigates the storage vs. composition of inflected forms in typically-developing children. Children aged 8-12 were tested on the production of regular and irregular past-tense forms. Storage (vs. composition) was examined by probing for past-tense frequency effects and imageability effects--both of which are diagnostic tests for storage--while controlling for a number of confounding factors. We also examined sex as a factor. Irregular inflected forms, which must depend on stored representations, always showed evidence of storage (frequency and/or imageability effects), not only across all children, but also separately in both sexes. In contrast, for regular forms, which could be either stored or composed, only girls showed evidence of storage. This pattern is similar to that found in previously-acquired adult data from the same task, with the notable exception that development affects which factors influence the storage of regulars in females: imageability plays a larger role in girls, and frequency in women. Overall, the results suggest that irregular inflected forms are always stored (in children and adults, and in both sexes), whereas regulars can be either composed or stored, with their storage a function of various item- and subject-level factors

Comparison of Three Dietary Assessment Methods to Estimate Meat Intake as Part of a Meat Reduction Intervention among Adults in the UK

Food diaries are used to estimate meat intake at an individual level but it is unclear whether simpler methods would provide similar results. This study assessed the agreement between 7 day food diaries in which composite dishes were disaggregated to assess meat content (reference method), and two simpler methods: (1) frequency meal counts from 7 day food diaries; and (2) 7 day dietary recalls, each using standard estimated portion sizes. We compared data from a randomized controlled trial testing a meat reduction intervention. We used Bland-Altman plots to assess the level of agreement between methods at baseline and linear mixed-effects models to compare estimates of intervention effectiveness. At baseline, participants consumed 132 g/d (±75) of total meat; frequency meal counts and dietary recalls underestimated this by an average of 30 and 34 g/day, respectively. This was partially explained by an underestimation of the assumed portion size. The two simpler methods also underestimated the effect of the intervention, relative to control, though the significant effect of the intervention was unchanged. Simpler methods underestimated absolute meat intake but may be suitable for use in studies to measure the change in meat intake in individuals over time

Impact of sublethal levels of environmental pollutants found in sewage sludge on a novel Caenorhabditis elegans model biosensor

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effectiveness of an Online Programme to Tackle Individual’s Meat Intake through SElf-regulation (OPTIMISE):A randomised controlled trial

Purpose A reduction in meat intake is recommended to meet health and environmental sustainability goals. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an online self-regulation intervention to reduce meat consumption. Methods One hundred and fifty one adult meat eaters were randomised 1:1 to a multi-component self-regulation intervention or an information-only control. The study lasted 9 weeks (1-week self-monitoring; 4-week active intervention; and 4-week maintenance phase). The intervention included goal-setting, self-monitoring, action-planning, and health and environmental feedback. Meat intake was estimated through daily questionnaires in weeks 1, 5 and 9. The primary outcome was change in meat consumption from baseline to five weeks. Secondary outcomes included change from baseline to nine weeks and change in red and processed meat intake. We used linear regression models to assess the effectiveness of all the above outcomes. Results Across the whole sample, meat intake was 226 g/day at baseline, 118 g/day at five weeks, and 114 g/day at nine weeks. At five weeks, the intervention led to a 40 g/day (95%CI − 11.6,− 67.5, P = 0.006) reduction in meat intake, including a 35 g/day (95%CI − 7.7, − 61.7, P = 0.012) reduction in red and processed meat, relative to control. There were no significant differences in meat reduction after the four-week maintenance phase (− 12 g/day intervention vs control, 95% CI 19.1, − 43.4, P = 0.443). Participants said the intervention was informative and eye-opening. Conclusion The intervention was popular among participants and helped achieve initial reductions in meat intake, but the longer-term reductions did not exceed control. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04961216, 14th July 2021, retrospectively registered

Evaluation of OPTIMISE (Online Programme to Tackle Individual’s Meat Intake Through Self-regulation): Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to reduce society’s meat consumption to help mitigate climate change and reduce noncommunicable diseases. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate changes in meat intake after participation in an online, multicomponent, self-regulation intervention. METHODS: We conducted a pre-post observational study among adult meat eaters in the United Kingdom who signed up to a website offering support based on self-regulation theory to reduce meat consumption. The program lasted 9 weeks (including a 1-week baseline phase, a 4-week active intervention phase, and a 4-week maintenance phase), comprising self-monitoring, goal setting, action planning, and health and environmental feedback. Meat intake was estimated during weeks 1, 5, and 9 using a 7-day meat frequency questionnaire. We analyzed the change in mean daily meat intake from baseline to week 5 and week 9 among those reporting data using a hierarchical linear mixed model. We assessed changes in attitudes toward meat consumption by questionnaire and considered the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. RESULTS: The baseline cohort consisted of 289 participants, of whom 77 were analyzed at week 5 (26.6% of the baseline sample) and 55 at week 9 (71.4% of the week 5 sample). We observed large reductions in meat intake at 5 and 9 weeks: –57 (95% CI –70 to –43) g/day (P<.001) and –49 (95% CI –64 to –34) g/day (P<.001), respectively. Participants’ meat-free self-efficacy increased, meat-eating identities moved toward reduced-meat and non–meat-eating identities, and perceptions of meat consumption as the social norm reduced. Participants who completed the study reported high engagement and satisfaction with the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Among people motivated to engage, this online self-regulation program may lead to large reductions in meat intake for more than 2 months, with promising signs of a change in meat-eating identity toward more plant-based diets. This digital behavior change intervention could be offered to complement population-level interventions to support reduction of meat consumption

Perceptions of social norms around healthy and environmentally-friendly food choices: Linking the role of referent groups to behavior

Referent groups can moderate the perception of social norms and individuals’ likelihood to model these norms in food choice contexts, including vegetable intake and reduced meat consumption. The present study investigated whether having a close vs. a distant social group as the referent changed perceptions of social norms around making healthy and eco-friendly food choices. It also assessed whether these changes were associated with a difference in the health and environmental impacts of food choice in a virtual grocery shopping task. A nationally representative sample of UK adults (N = 2,488) reported their perceptions of making healthy and eco-friendly food choices being the norm among people they share meals with (close referent group) and most people in the UK (distant referent group). The former was more commonly perceived to be making both healthy (Z = −12.0, p  0.05, 95% CIs: −1.12, 0.25) and health (β = −0.06, p > 0.05, 95% CIs: −0.37, 0.25) impacts. Framing social norms around making healthy and eco-friendly food choices to refer to a close referent group may change their perceptions and ability to encourage sustainable and healthy food purchasing

Replacing meat with alternative plant-based products (RE-MAP):a randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent behavioral intervention to reduce meat consumption

BACKGROUND: Reducing meat consumption could protect the environment and human health. OBJECTIVES: We tested the impact of a behavioral intervention to reduce meat consumption. METHODS: Adult volunteers who regularly consumed meat were recruited from the general public and randomized 1:1 to an intervention or control condition. The intervention comprised free meat substitutes for 4 weeks, information about the benefits of eating less meat, success stories, and recipes. The control group received no intervention or advice on dietary change. The primary outcome was daily meat consumption after 4 weeks, assessed by a 7-day food diary, and repeated after 8 weeks as a secondary outcome. Other secondary and exploratory outcomes included the consumption of meat substitutes, cardiovascular risk factors, psychosocial variables related to meat consumption, and the nutritional composition of the diet. We also estimated the intervention's environmental impact. We evaluated the intervention using generalized linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and October 2019, 115 participants were randomized. The baseline meat consumption values were 134 g/d in the control group and 130 g/d in the intervention group. Relative to the control condition, the intervention reduced meat consumption at 4 weeks by 63 g/d (95% CI: 44–82; P < 0.0001; n = 114) and at 8 weeks by 39 g/d (95% CI: 16–62; P = 0.0009; n = 113), adjusting for sex and baseline consumption. The intervention significantly increased the consumption of meat substitutes without changing the intakes of other principal food groups. The intervention increased intentions, positive attitudes, perceived control, and subjective norms of eating a low-meat diet and using meat substitutes, and decreased attachment to meat. At 8 weeks, 55% of intervention recipients identified as meat eaters, compared to 89% of participants in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: A behavioral program involving free meat substitutes can reduce meat intake and change psychosocial constructs consistent with a sustained reduction in meat intake

Estimating the effect of moving meat-free products to the meat aisle on sales of meat and meat-free products: A non-randomised controlled intervention study in a large UK supermarket chain

Background Reducing meat consumption could bring health and environmental benefits, but there is little research to date on effective interventions to achieve this. A non-randomised controlled intervention study was used to evaluate whether prominent positioning of meat-free products in the meat aisle was associated with a change in weekly mean sales of meat and meat-free products. Methods and findings Weekly sales data were obtained from 108 stores: 20 intervention stores that moved a selection of 26 meat-free products into a newly created meat-free bay within the meat aisle and 88 matched control stores. The primary outcome analysis used a hierarchical negative binomial model to compare changes in weekly sales (units) of meat products sold in intervention versus control stores during the main intervention period (Phase I: February 2019 to April 2019). Interrupted time series analysis was also used to evaluate the effects of the Phase I intervention. Moreover, 8 of the 20 stores enhanced the intervention from August 2019 onwards (Phase II intervention) by adding a second bay of meat-free products into the meat aisle, which was evaluated following the same analytical methods. During the Phase I intervention, sales of meat products (units/store/week) decreased in intervention (approximately −6%) and control stores (−5%) without significant differences (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.01 [95% CI 0.95–1.07]. Sales of meat-free products increased significantly more in the intervention (+31%) compared to the control stores (+6%; IRR 1.43 [95% CI 1.30–1.57]), mostly due to increased sales of meat-free burgers, mince, and sausages. Consistent results were observed in interrupted time series analyses where the effect of the Phase II intervention was significant in intervention versus control stores. Conclusions Prominent positioning of meat-free products into the meat aisle in a supermarket was not effective in reducing sales of meat products, but successfully increased sales of meat-free alternatives in the longer term. A preregistered protocol (https://osf.io/qmz3a/) was completed and fully available before data analysis.</p