The Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in Children: The Immediate and Long-term Outcomes of a School-based Program

Abstract

The ability of a school-based program with training in both cognitive and social skills to prevent depressive symptoms in children (the Penn Prevention Program) was evaluated. Research conducted in Australia has failed to replicate the success of the program in the United States. Also evaluated was the ability of the program to reduce the symptoms of anxiety, the assumption that changes in social skills and cognitive style would be associated with changes in symptoms of depression and anxiety, and the relative merits of the cognitive and social components of the program. Sixty-three children in fifth and sixth grades were randomly allocated to intervention and control groups. There was no evidence that the Penn Prevention Program had any impact on the variables measured at the end of the program or at the 8-month follow-up assessment. Limitations and implications of the present findings are discussed.

Preventing Depression Among Early Adolescents in the Primary Care Setting: A Randomized Controlled Study of the Penn Resiliency Program

“…Three studies by other research groups in Australia have attempted to replicate PRP's effects. One study produced significant results (Quayle et al, 2001), but the other studies failed to replicate PRP's effect on depressive symptoms despite group leaders' receiving extensive PRP training (Pattison & Lynd-Stevenson, 2001;Roberts et al, 2003). A similar drop-off in effectiveness was recently reported for the Resourceful Adolescent Program (RAP).…”

“…PRP's effectiveness is less clear when delivered by non-Penn therapists at sites distant from its Philadelphia base. Two recent studies of PRP conducted by research teams in Australia failed to replicate PRP's effects on depressive symptoms (Pattison & Lynd-Stevenson, 2001;Roberts, Kane, Thomson, Bishop, & Hart, 2003). The major goal of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness and transportability (Schoenwald & Hoagwood, 2001) of PRP by examining its effects when delivered by non-PRP clinicians in a medical primary care setting.…”

School-based prevention of depressive symptoms: A randomized controlled study of the effectiveness and specificity of the penn resiliency program.

“…Only a few studies have compared prevention programs with attention control groups or alternate interventions. Pattison and Lynd-Stevenson (2001) found that PRP did not significantly reduce or prevent depressive symptoms relative to both nointervention and attention control groups. The small sample size (N = 63) may have limited power to detect effects, however.…”

“…Effect sizes were moderate to large (d > 0.60) 12-24 months postintervention (Gillham et al, 1995). However, other studies failed to replicate these findings (e.g., Pattison & Lynd-Stevenson, 2001;Roberts, Kane, Bishop, & Matthews, 2004). A review of PRP research suggests that PRP's effects are strongest when group leaders are the intervention developers, members of their research team, and graduate students who receive extensive training and supervision from the intervention developers.…”

Facilitating Pathways

“…20.5.3) by Jaycox et al (1994) as a universal inter vention with differing levels of success (e.g., Cun ningham, Brandon, and Frydenberg 1999; Pattison and Lynd-Stevenson 2001;Quayle et al 2001;Shochet et al 2001). About half of these studies found significant improvements in coping skills, attributional style, and perceived control at posttest.…”