9 Appendices

9.1 Appendix 1. List of reviews excluded at full-text eligibility assessment

Excluded Review	Reason for Exclusion
“Methods to Prevent” 2010	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
“The Effect of Preventative” 2006	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Aalbers 2017	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Adams 2013	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Ahmead 2006	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ahuvia 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Allen 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Allen-Meares 2013	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Amado-Rodríguez 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Anderson 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Anna-Kaisa 2022	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Annous 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Araujo 2016	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Arbesman 2013	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Arnaud 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Arnold 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Arora 2019	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Arora 2021	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Attwood 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Avery 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Babbage 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Baffsky 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Bains 2016	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Ballard 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Baourda 2022	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Baron 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Barry 2013	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Barry 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bastounis 2017	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Bausback 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bayer 2009	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Becker 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bellón 2015	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Benarous 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bennett 2013	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Bennett 2015	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Bennett 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Benoit 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Berenguer 2020	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Berger 2019	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Bertha 2013	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Bettmann 2016	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Bevan-Jones 2017	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Bevan-Jones 2018	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Bharara 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bicer 2020	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Bidonde 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bin-Bin 2021	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Birdee 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Black 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Blackstock 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Blewitt 2018	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Bochicchio 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Boddy 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Boelens 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Bowen 2016	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Bradshaw 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Bray 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Brendel 2014	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Bröning 2012	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Brown 2018a	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Brown 2018b	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Bryning 2022	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Buettel 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Burkey 2018	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Burns 2019	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Burton 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Calear 2010	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Calear 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Camelo 2019	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Caprara 2022	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Carnevale 2013	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Carr 2008	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Carroll 2018	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Carter 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Carvalho 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Cary 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Casañas 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Cassidy 2020	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Cavaleri 2011	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Cervantes 2014	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Chandeying 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Chilton 2015	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Choi 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Choi 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Christensen 2010	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Christensen 2021	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Chua 2020	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Cilar 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Ciocanel 2017	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Clark 2001	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Clarke 2015	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Clery 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Cohen 2021	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Conley 2022	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Connor 2006	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Coriano 2015	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Correll 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Corrieri 2014	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Costantini 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Cox 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Cramer 2016	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Cuijpers 2003	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Cuijpers 2021	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Dardas 2018	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Das 2016	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Davaasambuu 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Dawson 2022	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
de Haan 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
de Haan 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
De Silva 2018	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
De Voy 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Dean 2018	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Derzon 2005	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Derzon 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Devenish 2016	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Dewa 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Dhillon 2021	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Döhnert 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Domhardt 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Domhardt 2021	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Dougherty 2020	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Dray 2015	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Dreisbach 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Du 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Dunning 2022	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Durlak 1997	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Durlak 1997	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Durlak 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ebert 2015	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Eccles 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Edbrooke‐Childs 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Egan 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Eilert 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ekeland 2004	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Ekeland 2005	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Elkchirid 2022	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Elliott 2019	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Elliott 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Engell 2020	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
English 2022	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Ergene 2003	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Erhardt 2019	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Espelage 2022	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Estradé 2022	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Evans 2014	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Evans 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Fabiano 2019	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Farahmand 2011	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Farahmand 2012	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Farrington 2009	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Fazel 2014	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Fazel 2019	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Feldman 2020	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Feldman 2021	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Fellmeth 2013	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Fenwick-Smith 2018	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Ferreira-Vorkapic 2015	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Filges 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Filia 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Fisak 2011	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Flores 2018	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Florescu 2019	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Florescu 2019	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Forman-Hoffman 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Forneris 2013	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Forsetlund 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Forti-buratti 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Foxcroft 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Fraguas 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Francis 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Franklin 2012	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Fréchette-Simard 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Freitas 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Frydman 2022	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Gallegos 2012	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
García-Parra 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Garrido 2019	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Gassner 2022	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Gijzen 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gillies 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gilmore 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gimba 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Głąbska 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gondek 2018	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
González-Valero 2019	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Görtz-Dorten 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Graeff-Martins 2008	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Grande 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Grande 2020	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Gregory 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Grist 2014	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Grist 2017	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Gronholm 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Guan 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Guggisberg 2005	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Guo 2021	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Guzek 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Guzman-Holst 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Haavanlammi 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Hahn 2019	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Haine-Schlagel 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Hale 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hamdani 2022	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Hardy 2020	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Harlow 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Harris 2019	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Harris 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Harrison 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Hartley 2019	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Haupt 2020	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Havinga 2021	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Hawton 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hay 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hazell 2009	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Hazell 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hediger 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Helmers 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hereld 2023	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Hetrick 2015	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Higgen 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Hoagwood 2007	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Hoare 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Hodder 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hollis 2017	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Howes Vallis 2020	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Hsu 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hu 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Huang 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hugh-Jones 2021	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Hunter 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ignaszewski 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Jacquart 2019	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Jané-Llopis 2003	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Januário 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Jenkins 2020	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Kågesten 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Karimi 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kase 2017	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Katz 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kauer 2014	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Kemel 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
King 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kirmayer 1999	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Klasen 2013	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Klein 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Knight 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Köhler 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kowalik 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kraag 2007	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Krause 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Kreslins 2015	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Kreuze 2018	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Kularatna 2022	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Kulkarni 2022	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Kumari 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kurz 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Lacerda 2011	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Lai 2014	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Lampropoulou 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Lannes 2021	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Larsson 2002	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Larun 2006	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Laurenzi 2020	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Lawrence 2017	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Layzer 2001	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Le 2021	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Lee 2017	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Lee 2020	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Levinson 2019	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Li 2021	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Li 2022	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Lin 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Linden 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Lisa-Marie 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Liverpool 2020	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Loechner 2018	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Lopez-Carmen 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Lüngen 2009	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Lux 2016	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Ly 2019	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Ma 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
MacArthur 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Macdonald 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Mackenzie 2018	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Maggin 2014	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Maggin 2015	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Maina 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Malik 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Manferdelli 2019	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Martín-Gómez 2020	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Martinez 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Martínez-García 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Martinez‐Santos 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Marx 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Marx 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Maslowski 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Mason-Jones 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Maynard 2015	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Maynard 2015	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Maynard 2017	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Maynard 2017	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
McCashin 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Mcdaid 2011	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
McGar 2019	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
McIntosh 2014	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
McMahon 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
McWey 2022	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Meherali 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Mehler-Wex 2008	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Mendez 2013	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Merry 2004	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Merry 2012	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Messman 2022	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Meyer 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Michael 1999	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Miller 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Moller 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Moltrecht 2020	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Moon 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Moore 2019	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Moreno-Peral 2020	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Moreno-Peral 2020	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Morgan 2011	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Morgan-López 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Morison 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Morken 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Mou 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Moula 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Moula 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Mowrey 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Munoz 2012	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Murray 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Mychailyszyn 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Myers 2021	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Neil 2007	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Neil 2009	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Ng 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Nisar 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
O’Mara 2013	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Ogundele 2019	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Opara 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ordonez 2016	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Oud 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ozabaci 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Pandey 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Pandey 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Panza 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Pearce 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Pedrini 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Peltonen 2010	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Pennant 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Peralta 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Perihan 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Perihan 2020	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Perihan 2022	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Perkins 2020	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Perry 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Pfefferbaum 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Phan 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Phillips 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Pilling 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Podina 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ponnuthurai 2018	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Porter 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Pucher 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Punukollu 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Purgato 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Qin 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Radomski 2019	Ineligible comparator (no comparator)
Radomski 2019	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Rasing 2017	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Read 2018	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Reddy 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Reece 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Reeves 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Reichow 2012	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Reichow 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Reilly 2017	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Renshaw 2017	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Reyes-Portillo 2014	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Reynard 2022	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Reyno 2006	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Richardson 2010	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Rigney 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Riley 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Rith-Najarian 2021	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Roberts 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Roberts 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Rogers 2017	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Rohde 2018	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Romeo 2005	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Rooksby 2015	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Rose-Clarke 2019	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Roseman 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Rowley 2022	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Russell 2021	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Saba 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sakellari 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Salazar de Pablo 2020	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Salazar de Pablo 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Salazar de Pablo 2021	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Salerno 2016	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Salter 2022	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Sancassiani 2015	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Sanchez 2018	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Sanchez 2018	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Sandelin 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sandler 1997	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Sandler 1997	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Sapthiang 2019	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Sasseville 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Savina 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sawyer 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Schachter 2008	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Schacter 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Schindler 2015	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Schmidt 2019	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Schmidt 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Schulte-Körne 2012	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Schulte-Körne 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Schumer 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Schwalbe 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Schwartz 2019	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Scott 2022	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Shaffer 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Sharpe 2013	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Shelleby 2015	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Shemilt 2012	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Shore 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Siegenthaler 2012	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Sigurvinsdóttir 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Singer 2007	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Singla 2020	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Singstad 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Sivaraman 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Skeen 2019	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Sklad 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Smedler 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Smith 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Smith 2022	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Soares 2019	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Soneson 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Šouláková 2019	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Šouláková 2019	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Spauls 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Spragg 2017	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Spruit 2016	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Staines 2021	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Statham 2004	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Steains 2021	Other reason (please specify in notes)
Stern 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Stice 2008	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Stice 2009	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Stoll 2015	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Stoll 2017	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Stoll 2020	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Sukhodolsky 1997	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sullivan 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sumner 2018	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Suto 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Sutton 2007	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Tang 2021	Ineligible publication type (not a full report)
Tanner-Smith 2018	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Tapias 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Tarver 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tay 2020	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Tehrani 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tennant 2007	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Teubert 2011	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Thabrew 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Thabrew 2018	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Thanhäuser 2017	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Thielemann 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tillmann 2018	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Tinner 2022	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Toombs 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Trask 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tremblay 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Troy 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Ttofi 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Turner-Boutle 1997	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Uphoff 2020	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Välimäki 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
van de Sande 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
van Genugten 2017	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
van Loon 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
VanLandingham 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Vreeman 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Vusio 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Waddell 2007	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Waddell 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Waid 2022	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Wang 2017	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Wang 2020	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Wang 2022	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Weare 2011	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Weaver 2015	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Weeks 2021	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Wei 2010	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Weisz 2005	Ineligible study design (not a systematic review)
Wells 2003	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Werlen 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Wethington 2008	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Wethington 2008	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
White 2022	Ineligible study design (no meta-analysis)
Wickersham 2022	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Wigham 2020	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Willmott 2022	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Wilson 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Winokur 2009	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Wolf 2005	Ineligible outcomes (no depression outcomes)
Wolf 2021	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Wozney 2018	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Wright 2015	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Xiang 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Yang 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Yang 2019	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Yap 2016	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Yilmaz 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Yohannan 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Yohannan 2022	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Zalsman 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Zarakoviti 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Zayeni 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Zechmeister 2008	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Zepeda 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Zhang 2016	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Zhang 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Zhelinsky-Denyer 2015	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Zhou 2020	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Zuckerman 2021	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)

9.2 Appendix 2. List of studies excluded at full-text eligibility assessment

Excluded Study	Reason for Exclusion
Ab Ghaffar 2019	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Adametz 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ahlen 2018	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Alampay 2020	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Alavi 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Allart-van Dam 2007	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Andreotti 2017	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Anticich 2013	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Attwood 2012	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Aune 2009	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Austin 2008	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Baer 2005	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Baker 1984	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Balle 2010	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Bar-Haim 2011	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Barnes 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Barnet 2002	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Barnet 2007	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Barrett 1996	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Barrett 2000	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Barrett 2001a	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Barrett 2001b	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Barrett 2003	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Barrett 2005	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Barron 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Beardslee 1997	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Beffert 1993	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Beidel 2000	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bella-Awusah 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Berger 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Berger 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Berger 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bernstein 2008	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Berry 2009	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Biegel 2009	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Blake 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bluth 2016a	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bluth 2016b	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bokhorst 1995	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bolton 2007	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Bond 2004	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bonhauser 2005	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bot 2010	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Botvin 1997	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Botvin 2001a	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Botvin 2001b	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Bouchard 2013	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Britton 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Brugha 2000	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Budderberg-Fischer 1998	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Burckhardt 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Burckhardt 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Burckhardt 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Calear 2016a	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Calear 2016b	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Castellanos 2006	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Chadi 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Chaplin 2006	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Charkhandeh 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Chen 2013	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Chen 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Chu 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Church 2012	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Clark 2010	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Clark 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Clarke 1995	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Clarke 2001	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Clarke 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Collins 2014	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Compas 2009	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Cooley 2004	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Cooley-Strickland 2011	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Cooper 2010	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Cova 2011	Awaiting classification
Cowell 2009	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Cradock 1978	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Cui 2016	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Cunningham 2002	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Curtis 1992	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Dadds 1997	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Dadds 2008	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
David 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
De Cuyper 2004	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
de Jong-Hessen 2020	Awaiting classification
De Jonge 2009	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
DeRosier 2004	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Diamond 2002	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Diaz-Gonzalez 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Dobson 2010	Awaiting classification
Doumas 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Dvorakova 2017	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Dybdahl 2001	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Eather 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ebrahiminejad 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ehntholt 2005	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Eisen 2003	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Elliott 2000	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Ellis 2011	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Ellis 2018	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Esmaeilian 2018	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Essau 2012	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Ettelson 2002	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Farrell 1997	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Farrell 2003	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Fitzgerald 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Fitzpatrick 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Fitzpatrick 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Flannery-Schroeder 2000	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Fleming 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Forsyth 2001	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Franco 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Frank 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Freedenberg 2017	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Freres 2002a	Awaiting classification
Freres 2002b	Awaiting classification
Fung 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gaesser 2017	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Gaete 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gallagher 2004	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gallegos 2008	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Garaigordobil 2004	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Garaigordobil 2019	Awaiting classification
Garber 2009	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Garcia-Campayo 2010	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gelkopf 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gilboy 2005	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gillham 1995	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Gillham 2006a	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Gillham 2006b	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Gillham 2007a	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Gillham 2007b	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Gillham 2012	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Ginsburg 2002	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Ginsburg 2009	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Ginsburg 2012	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Gordon 2008	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Grave 2001	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Green 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Greenburg 1995	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Grey 1998	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gucht 2017	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gueldner 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Gwynn 1987	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Haden 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hagan 2004	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Hains 1990	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hains 1992a	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hains 1992b	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hains 1994	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Han 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hannan 1995	Ineligible comparator (no comparator)
Haugland 2020	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Hiebert 1989a	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Hiebert 1989b	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Higgins 2006	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Hilyer 1982	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Holen 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hong 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Horn 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hoying 2016a	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hoying 2016b	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hundert 1999	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Hunt 2009	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Hyun 2005	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Ialongo 1999	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ingul 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Jaycox 1994	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Jaycox 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Joling 2012	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Jones 2010	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Jordans 2010	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kaesornsamut 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kahn 1990	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kehoe 2014	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Kellam 1994	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kendall 1994	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kendall 1997	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Keogh 2006	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Khalsa 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Khanna 2010	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
King 1990	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kiselica 1994	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Konnert 2009	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Kozina 2021	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Kraag 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kumakech 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kumar 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kuosmanen 2017	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Kuyken 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Kösters 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
La Greca 2016	Ineligible comparator (no comparator)
Lam 2008	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Lam 2016	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Lamb 1998	Awaiting classification
Lange-Nielsen 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Lara 2009	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Last 1998	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Lau 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Layne 2008	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Leventhal 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Lewis 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Liddle 1990	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Liddle 2010	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Livheim 2015	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Lock 2003	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Lowry-Webster 2001	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Lyneham 2006	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
MacKenzie 2008	Awaiting classification
MacMahon 1988	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Makover 2019	Awaiting classification
Malboeuf-Hurtubise 2016	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Malti 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Manassis 2010	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
March 2009	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Martinovic 2006	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Masia 2001	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Masia-Warner 2005	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Masia-Warner 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Masia-Warner 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Mason 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Mason 2012	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
McIndoo 2016	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
McLaughlin 2007	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
McLoone 2012	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
McMullen 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Melnyk 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Melnyk 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Melnyk 2014	Ineligible comparator (no comparator)
Melvin 2006	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Mendelson 2010	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Merry 2012	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Michael 2016	Ineligible comparator (no comparator)
Mifsud 2005	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Miller 2010	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Miller 2011a	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Miller 2011b	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Miller 2011c	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Moharreri 2017	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Morgenstern 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Mostert 2008	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Mufson 2004	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Munoz 1995	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Munoz 2007	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Muris 2001a	Ineligible comparator (no comparator)
Muris 2001b	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Muris 2002	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Myles-Pallister 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Nash 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Nehmy 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Newton 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Nguyen-Feng 2017	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Nobel 2012	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Noggle 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Noël 2013	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
O’Leary-Barrett 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Olive 2019	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ooi 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Oscos-Sanchez 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Owen 1982	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
O’Callaghan 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Pahl 2010	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Palermo 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Parker 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Patton 2006	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Peden 2000	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Pedro-Carroll 1985	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Peltonen 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Peng 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Perry 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Phipps 2013	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Pina 2012	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Pincus 2010	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Potek 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Qouta 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Quach 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ralph 1995	Ineligible comparator (no comparator)
Rapee 2005	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Rasing 2018	Awaiting classification
Reynolds 1986	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Reynolds 2011	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Rice 2008	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Richards 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Robinson 2008	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Rodgers 2015	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Rohde 2014	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Roosa 1989	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Rose 2009	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Rosenzweig 2003	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Rossouw 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Rovner 2007	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Ruini 2006	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ruini 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ruiz Aranda 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ruttledge 2016	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Sandler 1992	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sanford 2003	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Santonastaso 1999	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Schmiege 2006	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Scholten 2016	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Schonert-Reilht 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Schoneveld 2016	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Schoneveld 2018	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Seligman 1999	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Seligman 2007	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Shatte 1997	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Shen 2002	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Shinde 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Shochet 2002	Awaiting classification
Short 1993	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Shortt 2007	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sibinga 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sibinga 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sibinga 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Silbert 1991	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Silverman 1999	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Simon 2011	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Simons Morton 2005	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Simpson 2008	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Singhal 2018	Awaiting classification
Siu 2007	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Skryabina 2016	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Smith 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Spence 2006	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Sportel 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Ssewamala 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Stallard 2005	Ineligible comparator (no comparator)
Stallard 2006	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Stallard 2007	Ineligible comparator (no comparator)
Stallard 2014	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Stark 1987	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Stasiak 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Stein 2003	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Stice 2007	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Stice 2008	Awaiting classification
Stolberg 1994	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sung 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Sánchez-Hernández 2019	Awaiting classification
Takagaki 2016	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Tan 2015	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tang 2009	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tellier 1998	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Thirlwall 2013	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Thurman 2017a	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Thurman 2017b	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Tilfors 2011	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tokolahi 2018	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tol 2008	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tol 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tol 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Tomba 2010	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Topper 2017	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Trudeau 2012	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Umeh 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Unterhitzenberger 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
van Starrenburg 2017	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Van‘t Veer 2009	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Velásquez 2015	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Volanen 2020	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Vostanis 1996	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Walsh 2016	Ineligible population (not K-12 students)
Wass 2008	Awaiting classification
Waters 2019	Ineligible due to anxiety focus only
Weiss 2013	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Weisz 1997	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Whittaker 2017	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Wijnhoven 2014	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Willemse 2004	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Winters 2012	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Wolchik 1993	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Wolchik 2000	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Wood 1996	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Yang 2016	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Yoosefi Looyeh 2014	Ineligible interventions (not universal or secondary prevention)
Young 2006	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Young 2010	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Young 2012	Awaiting classification
Yu 2002	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Zlotnick 2001	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Zlotnick 2006	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)
Zlotnick 2011	Ineligible setting (not in school settings)

9.3 Appendix 3. List of studies awaiting classification

Study	Reason	Reference
Cova 2011	Could not locate document	Cova, F., Rincón, P., & Melipillán, R. (2011). Evaluación de la Eficacia de un Programa Preventivo Para la Depresión en Adolescentes de Sexo Femenino. Terapia Psicológica, 29(2), Article 2.
de Jong-Hessen 2020	Could not confirm that intervention was delivered during school hours	de Jonge-Heesen, K. W. J., Rasing, S. P. A., Vermulst, A. A., Scholte, R. H. J., van Ettekoven, K. M., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Creemers, D. H. M. (2020). Randomized control trial testing the effectiveness of implemented depression prevention in high-risk adolescents. BMC Medicine, 18(1), 188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01656-0
Dobson 2010	Could not confirm that intervention was delivered during school hours	Dobson, K. S., Ahnberg Hopkins, J., Fata, L., Scherrer, M., & Allan, L. C. (2010). The Prevention of Depression and Anxiety in a Sample of High-Risk Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(4), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573510386449
Freres 2002a	Could not locate document	Freres, D. R., Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K., Shatté, A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Preventive depressive symptoms: Piloting a parent component to the Penn Resiliency Program. Annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, San Francisco.
Freres 2002b	Could not locate document	Freres, D. R., Gillham, J. E., Hamilton, J. D., & Patton, K. (2002). Preventing depressive symptoms in early adolescence: 2-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Annual meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, San Francisco.
Garaigordobil 2019	Could not confirm that intervention was delivered during school hours	Garaigordobil, M., Jaureguizar, J., & Bernarás, E. (2019). Evaluation of the effects of a childhood depression prevention program. The Journal of Psychology, 153(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1502741
Lamb 1998	Could not confirm if (1) students met criteria for depression and (2) intervention was delivered during school hours	Lamb, J. M., Puskar, K. R., Sereika, S. M., & Corcoran, M. (1998). School-Based Intervention to Promote Coping in Rural Teens. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 23(4), 187.
MacKenzie 2008	Could not locate document	MacKenzie, M., Kelly, B., & Hunter, S. C. (2008). Unpublished doctoral thesis. The promotion of resilience and the prevention of depression: Impact of classroom environment. University of Strathclyde.
Makover 2019	Could not confirm if delivered during school hours	Makover, H., Adrian, M., Wilks, C., Read, K., Stoep, A. V., & McCauley, E. (2019). Indicated Prevention for Depression at the Transition to High School: Outcomes for Depression and Anxiety. Prevention Science, 20(4), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01005-5
Rasing 2018	Could not confirm if delivered during school hours	Rasing, S. P. A., Creemers, D. H. M., Vermulst, A. A., Janssens, J. M. A. M., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2018). Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of Depression and Anxiety Prevention for Adolescents with a High Familial Risk. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071457
Sánchez-Hernández 2019	Could not confirm if delivered during school hours	Sánchez-Hernández, Ó., Méndez, F. X., Ato, M., & Garber, J. (2019). Prevention of depressive symptoms and promotion of well-being in adolescents: A randomized controlled trial of the Smile Program. Anales de Psicología, 35(2), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.35.2.342591
Shochet 2002	Could not locate document	Shochet, I. M., Montague, R., & Dadds, M. (2002). Preventing depressive symptoms in adolescence with sustainable resources: Evaluation of a school-based effectiveness trial. Unpublished manuscript.
Singhal 2018	Could not confirm if delivered during school hours	Singhal, M., Munivenkatappa, M., Kommu, J. V. S., & Philip, M. (2018). Efficacy of an indicated intervention program for Indian adolescents with subclinical depression. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 33, 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2018.03.007
Stice 2008	Could not confirm if delivered during school hours	Stice, E., Rohde, P., Seeley, J. R., & Gau, J. M. (2008). Brief cognitive-behavioral depression prevention program for high-risk adolescents outperforms two alternative interventions: A randomized efficacy trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012645
Wass 2008	Could not locate document	Wass, M. (2008). Evaluation of the Penn Resiliency Program in England (unpublished data).
Young 2012	Could not confirm if delivered during school hours	Young, J. F., Makover, H. B., Cohen, J. R., Mufson, L., Gallop, R. J., & Benas, J. S. (2012). Interpersonal Psychotherapy-Adolescent Skills Training: Anxiety Outcomes and Impact of Comorbidity. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 41(5), 640–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2012.704843

9.4 Appendix 4. Characteristics of included reviews

Review	Ahlen 2015
Title	Universal Prevention for Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Children: A Meta-analysis of Randomized and Cluster-Randomized Trials
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Interventions targeting school-aged children 6–18 years. We excluded interventions targeting pre-school children and young adults.
Interventions	Universal interventions, i.e. studies where participants or groups were not identified as at risk. Interventions primarily targeting anxiety or/and depression. We excluded studies of selective and indicated interventions. We excluded studies including programs targeting suicide-prevention, the prevention of externalizing symptoms, and the promotion of social-emotional development and well-being.
Comparisons	Not reported
Outcomes	Not reported
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Not reported
Studies	Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster randomized controlled trials (C-RCTs). Peer-reviewed articles (in English) that were published in scholarly journals. We excluded cohort and quasi-experimental studies. We excluded studies not published in scholarly journals.
Databases Searched	Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, PsycINFO
Search Date	July 2012
Included Studies	30
Eligible Studies	13
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Åhlén, Johan, Ghaderi, Ata, Hursti, Timo (2017). Universal prevention of anxiety and depression in school children(Zotero's generic thesis/dissertation reference - override with correct option). (Order No. 2003022835) Uppsala Universitet (Sweden), Ann Arbor. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. Ahlen, Johan, Lenhard, Fabian, Ghaderi, Ata (2015). Universal Prevention for Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Children: A Meta-analysis of Randomized and Cluster-Randomized Trials; Journal of Primary Prevention. , 36(6), 387-403. doi:10.1007/s10935-015-0405-4

Review	Bastounis 2016
Title	The effectiveness of the Penn Resiliency Programme (PRP) and its adapted versions in reducing depression and anxiety and improving explanatory style: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Participants aged 8-17 years.
Interventions	Universal application of school-based PRP or any of its derivatives. Studies were excluded if they were describing the evaluation of targeted (selective or indicated) applications of PRP and its derivatives. Interventions targeting depression and (or) any of the secondary outcomes of interest.
Comparisons	Any type of control condition (active control such as health management sessions, non-intervention such as usual learning sessions and waiting-list).
Outcomes	Studies were excluded if they were not assessing any of the a priori selected outcomes of interest (depression, anxiety, explanatory style, and/or social skills). Measured by validated self-report measures.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	School-based.
Studies	Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs. Published in English. Published in peer-reviewed journals.
Databases Searched	ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, ISRCTN Register, MEDLINE (including PubMed), PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, Science Direct, Scopus
Search Date	April 16, 2015
Included Studies	9
Eligible Studies	7
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	CRD42015019811
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Bastounis, Anastasios, Callaghan, Patrick, Banerjee, Anirban, Michail, Maria (2016). The effectiveness of the Penn Resiliency Programme (PRP) and its adapted versions in reducing depression and anxiety and improving explanatory style: A systematic review and meta-analysis; Journal of Adolescence. , 52, 37-Missing. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.07.004

Review	Brunwasser 2009
Title	A Meta-Analytic Review of the Penn Resiliency Program's Effect on Depressive Symptoms
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Not reported
Interventions	Penn Resiliency Program.
Comparisons	Any control intervention.
Outcomes	Depressive symptoms. Data were reported both before the intervention began (baseline) and at one or more postintervention assessment points.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Not reported
Studies	Excluded studies published earlier than 1990. No studies were excluded due to sub-optimal research methods (e.g., non-random assignment). The review includes data from both published and unpublished studies.
Databases Searched	ERIC, Medline, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycInfo
Search Date	February 28, 2009
Included Studies	17
Eligible Studies	5
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Brunwasser, Steven M, Gillham, Jane E, Kim, Eric S (2009). A Meta-Analytic Review of the Penn Resiliency Program's Effect on Depressive Symptoms; Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. , 77(6), 1042-1054. doi:10.1037/a0017671

Review	Caldwell 2021
Title	School-based interventions to prevent anxiety, depression and conduct disorder in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Studies including participants between the ages of 4 and 18 years (age at study recruitment), in full- or part-time education, were eligible for inclusion. The lower age limit was set in accordance with the de facto school starting age in England and Wales. However, owing to global differences in school starting age, we determined that studies implemented in preschool settings would be eligible for inclusion if (1) the mean age of participants was 5 years or (2) the majority of enrolled children were aged 5 years at the time of the baseline assessment. The upper age limit reflects the minimum age of entry to higher (tertiary) education in England and Wales. However, studies were eligible for inclusion if the mean age of participants at baseline was ≤ 19 years. Studies targeted at young people not in education or training were excluded. Young people at risk of comorbid mental health disorders were eligible for inclusion. However, we excluded studies for which > 40% of participants had an identifiable or pre-existing mental disorder. To ensure a clinically homogeneous population for analysis, studies in which the whole population had a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or an autism spectrum disorder were excluded, as these form distinct diagnostic categories.
Interventions	Studies were included if they were explicitly aimed at the primary prevention of anxiety, depression [and/or conduct disorder] as operationalised according to categorical or clinically referenced definitions of disorder [e.g. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)]. This was to differentiate studies addressing related mental health constructs, such as emotional health or well-being, which were excluded (see Interventions and comparators). Studies were eligible if they focused on either prevention of disorder onset or prevention of symptoms. Interventions were eligible for inclusion if they addressed a universal, selective or indicated population, and the primary study aim was to prevent anxiety, depression [or conduct disorder]. We followed the NAM’s definition of primary prevention, which refers to universal, selective and indicated populations (see Figure 1). Briefly, universal prevention addresses whole populations not defined on the basis of risk; selective prevention is targeted at subgroups with a higher than average risk of developing a mental disorder; and indicated prevention is targeted at high-risk subgroups and/or individuals with detectable, but subclinical, symptoms of a mental disorder. In the first instance, we used authorreported classifications of the intended prevention level. However, when interventions were delivered to a whole class or school with the same at-risk characteristic (such as schools in low-income areas), they were combined with universal prevention. Studies that addressed individual symptoms, or combinations of symptoms, associated with anxiety, depression and conduct disorder, but without explicitly linking these to a clinically identifiable disorder, were excluded. For example, interventions to prevent insomnia, rumination or low self-esteem were excluded, even though these symptoms are associated with depressive and/or anxiety disorders, and interventions to prevent truancy, bullying or aggressive behaviour were excluded, even though these behaviours are associated symptoms of conduct disorder. - Unless the study was explicitly focused on disorder-specific prevention, then mental health promotion, awareness, literacy or information interventions were not eligible for inclusion. Social and emotional well-being and positive psychology interventions to improve mental well-being were also excluded, as research suggests that well-being is a separate construct to mental ill health. Interventions designed to target prevention of behaviours or social problems that might be on the causal pathway to a mental disorder (e.g. prevention of stress, anti-bullying interventions, substance abuse prevention) were also excluded. We excluded interventions aiming to help children and young people manage the consequences of a specific event or situation (eg, divorce, exams). Similarly, classroom management and school readiness interventions were not eligible. - ‘Parenting’ interventions such as parent management training or parenting skills interventions were not eligible for inclusion. However, interventions that took place in schools, with a parenting component, were eligible if the parenting component was not > 50% of the whole intervention. Studies were included only if they addressed the whole condition, not individual symptoms or combinations of associated symptoms. - Studies were excluded if the intervention was described by the author as indicated prevention, but baseline symptoms scores were suggestive of clinically meaningful symptom levels. Studies in indicated populations were eligible if participants had subclinical mental disorder symptoms as identified by a screening instrument, an interview or a teacher referral. Subclinical symptoms could be defined in reference to diagnostic criteria such as the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10)- or DSM-5-categorised disorders, or ‘in research’ via use of a disorder-specific screening instrument, for example the Children’s Depression Inventory or Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. The boundary between indicated prevention and early intervention (treatment) is debated,26,27 with no definitive diagnostic threshold. Studies were excluded if baseline measures were suggestive of clinically meaningful symptoms in > 40% of participants, even if the study had been defined as indicated prevention by the author. Eligible intervention types included psychological and psychosocial, educational or physical interventions that were implemented in educational settings, either individually or in groups. Inclusion was not restricted by mode of delivery. Interventions were included if delivered by peer educators, teachers, youth workers, clinicians, health visitors, school nurses or counsellors. Digital and online interventions were eligible for inclusion only if they were primarily delivered in the education setting or were a clear adjunct to a wider programme delivered in the school/educational setting (e.g. as homework).
Comparisons	All relevant non-pharmacological control interventions were considered eligible for inclusion, for example standard provision/usual curriculum, waiting list, no intervention, attention control or ‘placebo’ interventions, and other active psychological and psychosocial, educational or physical interventions.
Outcomes	All validated disease-specific measurement scales ... were eligible for inclusion. When studies reported multiple outcome measures, we applied a prespecified hierarchy to select the most appropriate outcome for analysis from each study (see Appendix 1). We did not exclude studies reporting a composite mental health scale from the systematic review [e.g. the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)]; however, they were not combined with disorder-specific scales in the main NMA.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Interventions implemented in an educational setting were eligible for inclusion. For the purposes of analysis, this was operationalised as being primary, secondary or tertiary educational settings. However, to accommodate global differences in educational systems, we did not restrict to interventions implemented in these settings if the age eligibility criteria were met. For example, an intervention delivered in a kindergarten setting would be eligible for inclusion if the mean age of participants was 5 years, or the majority of enrolled children were aged 5 years at the time of the baseline assessment. Interventions implemented in school-affiliated settings (e.g. after-school and holiday clubs) were eligible for inclusion if they were implemented on school grounds. Studies that used schools as the source of recruitment but for which the intervention was not school based were excluded. Health service settings, such as primary care and outpatient and inpatient settings, were excluded. Interventions implemented in young offender institutions and for looked-after children in residential care were also excluded. Interventions implemented in low-income countries (LICs), middle-income countries (MICs) or high-income countries (HICs) were eligible, as defined by 2017 World Bank classifications.
Studies	Parallel-group RCTs and quasi-randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. We defined quasi-randomised trials as those for which allocation was based on a pseudo-random sequence, such as the order in which participants were recruited or their date of birth. Both individually randomised and cluster randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. We did not plan to exclude crossover trials, but only the first period was considered eligible for inclusion.
Databases Searched	British Education Index, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Epistemonikos.org, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO
Search Date	April 04, 2018
Included Studies	137
Eligible Studies	46
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	CRD42016048184
Data Availability Statement	Data-sharing statement: Requests for access to extracted study data should be addressed to the corresponding author. Intervention and component-level NMAWinBUGS code is available from https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/persons/deborah-m-caldwell/projects/ or by contacting the corresponding author. Code for the network meta-analysis components models: The code on which the component level models are based is available in Dias et al.338 The adaptation to component-level NMA is based on WinBUGS code reported in Welton et al.46 The WinBUGS code for all three models implemented in this report and an example dataset are available from https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/persons/deborah-m-caldwell/projects or by contacting the corresponding author.
References	Caldwell, D (2019). Effectiveness of school-based interventions to prevent anxiety & depression in young people; European Journal of Public Health. , 29, Missing-Missing. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz185.021 Caldwell, Deborah M., Davies, Sarah R., Thorn, Joanna C., Palmer, Jennifer C., Caro, Paola, Hetrick, Sarah E., Gunnell, David, Anwer, Sumayya, López-López, José A., French, Clare, Kidger, Judi, Dawson, Sarah, Churchill, Rachel, Thomas, James, Campbell, Rona, Welton, Nicky J. (2021). School-based interventions to prevent anxiety, depression and conduct disorder in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Caldwell, Deborah M., Davies, Sarah R., Hetrick, Sarah E., Palmer, Jennifer C., Caro, Paola, López-López, José A., Gunnell, David, Kidger, Judi, Thomas, James, French, Clare, Stockings, Emily, Campbell, Rona, Welton, Nicky J. (2019). School-based interventions to prevent anxiety and depression in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.; The lancet. Psychiatry. Lancet Psychiatry, 6(12), 1011-1020. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30403-1 Caldwell, D. M., Davies, S. R., Thorn, J. C., Palmer, J. C., Caro, P., Hetrick, S. E., Gunnell, D., Anwer, S., López-López, J. A., French, C., Kidger, J., Dawson, S., Churchill, R., Thomas, J., Campbell, R., & Welton, N. J. (2021). School-based interventions to prevent anxiety, depression and conduct disorder in children and young people: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr09080

Review	Cowen 2014
Title	A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Depression Prevention Programs for Children and Adolescents
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Not reported
Interventions	An assessment of a depression prevention program was conducted. If it did not evaluate a specific depression prevention program, but one of its primary or secondary goals was to prevent depression. Programs that targeted extreme circumstances were excluded.
Comparisons	Not reported
Outcomes	Quantitative pre- and post-program outcome evaluation scores were reported as a treatment and control-group design. The study measured at least one depression outcome.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	The study targeted a school-based, K-12 program.
Studies	If attrition rates exceeded 33 percent, then that particular assessment would be excluded. Both experimental (randomized controlled trials) and quasi-experimental (i.e., non randomized groups) studies were included. Those studies that used classrooms or schools as the unit of randomization were coded as quasi-experimental. Those that randomly assigned students to treatment and control groups were coded as experimental designs. All the studies included a comparison group, most of which conducted classroom lessons as usual. Both published and unpublished studies were included to minimize the possibility of publication bias.
Databases Searched	Dissertation and Theses, Medline, PsycExtra, PsycInfo
Search Date	2013
Included Studies	56
Eligible Studies	25
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Cowen, Sherry L., Day, Randal D. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Depression Prevention Programs for Children and Adolescents(Zotero's generic thesis/dissertation reference - override with correct option). (Order No. 2535286985) Brigham Young University, Ann Arbor. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.

Review	Davaasambuu 2020
Title	Effects of interventions to reduce adolescent depression in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Adolescents.
Interventions	- Half of the interventions utilized a combination of therapeutic techniques (so-called ‘complex psychosocial interventions’). For instance, CBT techniques combined with creative expression skills, CBT combined with IPT, are examples of complex interventions. The other half focused on specific interventions such as CBT, IPT, play therapy, and writing sessions. Medical interventions (medicine treatment) were not included.
Comparisons	Not reported
Outcomes	Primary outcome of the studies was change from baseline in depressive symptoms among adolescents.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Interventions that were delivered in different settings such as schools and community centers. For example, if the interventions were delivered at schools, they were considered as school setting interventions, and if the interventions delivered at community health centers, refugee campuses and other places in the community, they considered as community setting interventions. Implemented in LMICs. The World Bank categorized the LMICs based on the Country Income Level in 2018–2019 fiscal year (Bank, 2019).
Studies	The RCTs included in this systematic review and meta-analysis were traditional and cluster-randomized trials.
Databases Searched	CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Medline, PsycInfo, PubMed/
Search Date	December 2018
Included Studies	28
Eligible Studies	1
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Davaasambuu, Sarantsetseg, Hauwadhanasuk, Tanyathorn, Matsuo, Hisako, Szatmari, Peter (2020). Effects of interventions to reduce adolescent depression in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.; Journal of psychiatric research. J Psychiatr Res, 123, 201-215. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.01.020

Review	Dray 2017
Title	Systematic Review of Universal Resilience-Focused Interventions Targeting Child and Adolescent Mental Health in the School Setting
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Participants aged 5 to 18 years.
Interventions	Universal, school-based, resilience-focused interventions. Interventions that addressed at least 3 internal resilience protective factors.
Comparisons	- Control or an alternative intervention.
Outcomes	Reported the prevalence or extent of occurrence of at least 1 of 7 mental health problems: depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, hyperactivity, conduct problems, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, or general psychological distress.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Interventions conducted in war zones were excluded because of their unique context and the differences in conceptual approaches to strengthening resilience in such environments.
Studies	Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster randomized controlled trials (CRCTs).
Databases Searched	CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), EMBASE, ERIC, Google Scholar, Medline, PsycINFO
Search Date	December 2015
Included Studies	58
Eligible Studies	21
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	CRD420150258908
Data Availability Statement	The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References	Dray, Julia, BPsych, Bowman, Jenny, PhD, Campbell, Elizabeth, PhD, Freund, Megan, PhD, Wolfenden, Luke, PhD, Hodder, Rebecca K, MAppPsych, McElwaine, Kathleen, PhD, Tremain, Danika, BPsych, Bartlem, Kate, PhD, Bailey, Jacqueline, BPsych, Small, Tameka, BNutrDiet, Palazzi, Kerrin, MPH, Oldmeadow, Christopher, PhD, Wiggers, John, PhD (2017). Systematic Review of Universal Resilience-Focused Interventions Targeting Child and Adolescent Mental Health in the School Setting; Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. , 56(10), 813-Missing. Retrieved from http://libproxy.uoregon.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/systematic-review-universal-resilience-focused/docview/1949093054/se-2

Review	Feiss 2019
Title	A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of School-Based Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Prevention Programs for Adolescents
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Middle and high school students (i.e., students ages 11–18) in the United States.
Interventions	Programs aimed at reducing stress, depression/depressive symptoms, anxiety, or other internalizing mental health-related problems.
Comparisons	Not reported
Outcomes	Not reported
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Programs in U.S. middle and/or high schools.
Studies	Studies published between 1990 and 2018. Reviews, epidemiology articles, non-peer reviewed articles, and studies that omitted baseline and/or posttest scores were excluded.
Databases Searched	Academic Search Premiere, ERIC, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES
Search Date	May 01, 2018
Included Studies	42
Eligible Studies	11
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	CRD42019111052
Data Availability Statement	The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References	Feiss, Robyn, Dolinger, Sarah Beth, Merritt, Monaye, Reiche, Elaine, Karley, Martin, Yanes, Julio A, Thomas, Chippewa M, Pangelinan, Melissa (2019). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of School-Based Stress, Anxiety, and Depression Prevention Programs for Adolescents; Journal of Youth and Adolescence. , 48(9), 1668-1685. doi:10.1007/s10964-019-01085-0

Review	Garber 2016
Title	Treatment and Prevention of Depression and Anxiety in Youth: Test of Cross-Over Effects
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Children and/or adolescents (mean sample age < 20).
Interventions	Targeting either anxiety or depression.
Comparisons	Not reported
Outcomes	Studies were excluded if they only assessed categorical diagnoses. Studies were excluded if they included measures of anxiety and depression at baseline but did not provide data on both constructs at post-intervention.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Not reported
Studies	Randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Databases Searched	Not reported
Search Date	Not reported
Included Studies	57
Eligible Studies	11
Prisma Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Garber, Judy, Brunwasser, Steven M., Zerr, Argero A., Schwartz, Karen T. G., Sova, Karen, Weersing, V. Robin (2016). Treatment and Prevention of Depression and Anxiety in Youth: Test of Cross-Over Effects.; Depression and anxiety. Depress Anxiety, 33(10), 939-959. doi:10.1002/da.22519

Review	Gee 2020
Title	Practitioner Review: Effectiveness of indicated school-based interventions for adolescent depression and anxiety - a meta-analytic review
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Participants aged 10–19 years were the direct recipients of the trial intervention (trials where some participants were aged under 10 were included provided the mean age of the sample was 10 years or over). All included participants were symptomatic: that is, they were seeking help for symptoms of depression or anxiety and/or were presenting with depression or anxiety symptoms deemed to exceed a threshold for intervention prespecified by the trial team.
Interventions	The trial intervention was a manualised psychological intervention. If a multi-component intervention, the psychological component constituted at least 75% of the content. The trial intervention was designed primarily to decrease symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. Since the focus of this review was indicated interventions, trials of universal (whole-school) approaches or integrated universal-indicated programmes were not eligible for inclusion unless they also included an indicated intervention only arm.
Comparisons	Studies with any control condition, either active or passive, will be eligible.
Outcomes	Trials were only included if we were able to obtain sufficient outcome data for meta-analysis (either from the published report or by contacting the corresponding author).
Timing	Randomised controlled trials with follow-up of any length will be eligible for inclusion.
Setting	The trial intervention was delivered wholly or partly within an institution whose primary function was education. Trials conducted in high, middle and low income countries will be eligible for inclusion. Trials of interventions delivered in universities or other higher education institutions were also ineligible. Trials of interventions delivered within non-mainstream education settings (e.g. pupil referral unit) will be eligible for inclusion provided they meet the above criteria.
Studies	Randomised controlled trial (RCT) design, including cluster RCTs.
Databases Searched	ASSIA, British Education Index, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO
Search Date	April 04, 2019
Included Studies	45
Eligible Studies	11
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	CRD42018099695
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Gee, Brioney, Reynolds, Shirley, Carroll, Ben, Orchard, Faith, Clarke, Tim, Martin, David, Wilson, Jon, Pass, Laura (2020). Practitioner Review: Effectiveness of indicated school‐based interventions for adolescent depression and anxiety – a meta‐analytic review; Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. , 61(7), 739-756. doi:10.1111/jcpp.13209

Review	Havlik 2020
Title	A Meta-Analysis of School Based Mental Health Interventions for Secondary Students
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Participants must have been secondary (e.g., middle or high school) students in grades six through twelve. If participant grade was not available, participant age was considered (e.g., between the ages of 11 years and 21 years, 11 months). If participants spanned multiple grades, the mean grade of participants had to be above the fifth grade, and the mean age of participants had to be above 11 years and below 21 years, 11 months.
Interventions	Studies had to utilize an intervention/treatment designed to target student mental health outcomes (i.e., no theoretical or review articles were included).
Comparisons	Studies had to include a treatment-as-usual control comparison group (i.e., as opposed to two active intervention conditions).
Outcomes	Studies had to include measures of mental health outcomes (e.g., internalizing symptoms such as depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, or trauma symptoms; externalizing symptoms such as aggression, defiance, or conduct problems; substance use problems; or attention problems). Studies had to provide sufficient quantitative data to allow the calculation of effect size statistics (i.e., posttreatment mean and standard deviation for treatment and control groups on measures of interest).
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Studies had to be conducted in a school setting.
Studies	Studies had to meet What Works Clearinghouse Group Design Standards with or without reservations (i.e., employ a randomized control trial or quasi experimental design with low attrition rates and baseline equivalence among relevant measures). Studies had to be published in English. Studies had to be published prior to 2019. Studies had to be published in peer reviewed journals.
Databases Searched	Academic Search Premier, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsycINFO via EBSCOhost Databases
Search Date	Not reported
Included Studies	60
Eligible Studies	15
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Havlik, Katherine L., Clark, Elaine, Davis, John (2020). A Meta-Analysis of School Based Mental Health Interventions for Secondary Students(Zotero's generic thesis/dissertation reference - override with correct option). (Order No. 2711036190) The University of Utah, Ann Arbor. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.

Review	Horowitz 2006
Title	The Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analytic Review
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	The study had to include participants under age 21.
Interventions	One of the stated goals had to involve preventing depressive symptoms and/or disorders in children or adolescents.
Comparisons	The study had to include a comparison of an active intervention with a control condition.
Outcomes	Studies had to measure depressive symptoms with a generally accepted measure.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Not reported
Studies	Participants had to be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group.
Databases Searched	PsycINFO
Search Date	Not reported
Included Studies	30
Eligible Studies	11
Prisma Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Horowitz, Jason L, Garber, Judy (2006). The Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analytic Review; Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. , 74(3), 401-415. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.401

Review	Johnstone 2018
Title	A Meta-Analysis of Universal School-Based Prevention Programs for Anxiety and Depression in Children
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Assessed children aged 13 years or below.
Interventions	Employed a universal prevention program. The prevention program was based on psychological principles Educational or physical-based programs were excluded.
Comparisons	Waitlist, placebo, or usual care control conditions.
Outcomes	Studies reported valid and reliable outcome measures of both anxiety and depressive symptoms for children. Essential data (i.e., means, standard deviations, and sample sizes) were presented, or data could be obtained from the authors.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Employed a universal, school-based prevention program.
Studies	Randomised controlled trials. Studies published articles up to and including January 2018. Published in English.
Databases Searched	Google Scholar, PsycINFO (OVID), PubMED
Search Date	January 2018
Included Studies	11
Eligible Studies	5
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Johnstone, Kristy M, Kemps, Eva, Chen, Junwen (2018). A Meta-Analysis of Universal School-Based Prevention Programs for Anxiety and Depression in Children; Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. , 21(4), 466-481. doi:10.1007/s10567-018-0266-5

Review	Kavanagh 2009
Title	School-based cognitive-behavioural interventions: A systematic review of effects and inequalities
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Groups or individuals targeted by interventions aged 11-19.
Interventions	- Interventions based on cognitive behavioural techniques.
Comparisons	Not reported
Outcomes	Measure at least one of the following outcomes: depression, anxiety, or suicidality (suicidal thoughts or behaviours).
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Interventions delivered within secondary schools.
Studies	Use a randomised controlled design. Be published from 1996 onwards. Be reported in the English language.
Databases Searched	ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, C2 SPECTR, Database of Public Health Effectiveness Reviews (DOPHER), EMBASE, ERIC, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Mind (http://www.mind.org.uk/), National Institute of Mental Health (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/), PSITRI, PSYCINFO, SOCIAL SCIENCE CITATION INDEX, Trials Register of Public Health Interventions (TROPHI), Young Minds (http://www.youngminds.org.uk/)
Search Date	Not reported
Included Studies	17
Eligible Studies	6
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Kavanagh, Josephine, Oliver, Sandy, Lorenc, Theo, Caird, Jennifer, Tucker, Helen, Harden, Angela, Greaves, Adele, Thomas, James, Oakley, Ann (2009). School-based cognitive-behavioural interventions: A systematic review of effects and inequalities; Health Sociology Review. , 18(1), 61-78. Retrieved from http://libproxy.uoregon.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/school-based-cognitive-behavioural-interventions/docview/60361638/se-2?accountid=14698

Review	Ma 2020
Title	Resilience-oriented cognitive behavioral interventions for depressive symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	The study targeted children and adolescents as participants.
Interventions	The study assessed an intervention of resilience-oriented CBIs. We focused exclusively on a subtype of CBIs, which combine at least three core content areas: cognitive restructuring (with or without a module on behavioral activation), problem solving, and social skills training. Under this criterion, CBIs with limited content areas (e.g., cognitive restructuring only), interpersonal therapy, and third-wave cognitive behavioral therapy (e.g., mindfulness-based interventions), which might be promising in addressing depressive symptoms for students, were not included in the scope of this review. Programs that were primarily developed to target overall psychological well-being or other mental health issues (e.g., anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorders) were excluded, such as FRIENDS, REACH for RESILIENCE, and ERASE-Stress.
Comparisons	The study compared the intervention condition with a no-intervention, assessment-only, waiting list, attention control, or placebo control condition. To minimize the difficulty in understanding, head-to-head trials that compared the intervention with an active control condition such as psychological intervention, or physical exercise were excluded from this review.
Outcomes	The study evaluated depression as a primary outcome. The study used a validated measure for the assessment of depressive symptoms.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	School settings.
Studies	The study was a randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trial.
Databases Searched	Cohcrane Central, Medline, PsycInfo
Search Date	June 01, 2019
Included Studies	40
Eligible Studies	27
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Ma, Liang, Zhang, Yingnan, Huang, Cong, Cui, Zeshi (2020). Resilience-oriented cognitive behavioral interventions for depressive symptoms in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review.; Journal of affective disorders. J Affect Disord, 270, 150-164. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.051

Review	Mychailyszyn 2011
Title	School-based interventions for anxious and depressed youth: A meta-analysis of outcomes
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Participants had to be school-age children and adolescents currently enrolled in grades K through 12.
Interventions	Interventions for anxiety or depression. Intervention must have been cognitive-behavioral in nature. The content of the intervention may have been delivered in any language.
Comparisons	Not reported
Outcomes	The study must have provided quantitative analyses of outcome data, with the specific statistical information needed for the calculation of effect sizes, or author contact information to obtain the additional data needed.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Implemented within a school system.
Studies	The size of the samples under investigation had to be sufficiently large enough to allow for the types of statistical analyses required for meta-analytic purposes. Single-subject case studies were not included in this review. The study must have been written in English. In order to preserve assumptions of independence, studies were excluded if the sample under investigation overlapped either in whole or in part with the sample of participants from another study which met inclusion criteria. When this was suspected, authors were contacted to confirm participant sample overlap. In such instances where this was the case, the study conducted first temporally was chosen for inclusion, as youth who were included in later examinations were more likely to have entered with prior exposure to psychotherapeutic strategies.
Databases Searched	PsycInfo, PubMed
Search Date	June 01, 2010
Included Studies	63
Eligible Studies	20
Prisma Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Mychailyszyn, Matthew P., Kendall, Philip C. (2011). School-based interventions for anxious and depressed youth: A meta-analysis of outcomes(Zotero's generic thesis/dissertation reference - override with correct option). (Order No. 874377329) Temple University, Ann Arbor. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.

Review	Reangsing 2021
Title	Effects of mindfulness interventions on depressive symptoms in adolescents: A meta-analysis
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Participants between 10 and 19.5 years of age.
Interventions	Mindfulness interventions, including mindfulness-based stress reduction, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, or adapted mindfulness interventions. Aimed at reducing depression in adolescents.
Comparisons	Compared to a control group including usual care, waitlist control, or attention-control that was not related to mindfulness. We did not include studies where researchers used active comparison groups, such as comparison groups who received antidepressants, psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, supportive therapy, or exercise/relaxation interventions.
Outcomes	Depression was measured as an quantitative outcome. When primary researchers did not report sufficient data for the computation of effect size, we emailed the corresponding authors to request more information. If the corresponding author did not response after two inquiry emails, we excluded that the study.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Not reported
Studies	We included all experimental study designs including randomized control trials and quasi-experimental. To minimize publication bias, conference papers and unpublished dissertations were included. We also excluded studies with less than 4 participants per group.
Databases Searched	American Psychological Association, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, ERIC, Google Scholar, Medline (OVID), Open Directory of Open Access Repositories, PsycInfo (OVID), Open Grey, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses, Pubmed, Science Direct, Scopus
Search Date	April 2019
Included Studies	29
Eligible Studies	3
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Reangsing, Chuntana, MSc, RN, Punsuwun, Sasinun, MNS, RN, Schneider, Joanne Kraenzle, PhD, RN (2021). Effects of mindfulness interventions on depressive symptoms in adolescents: A meta-analysis; International Journal of Nursing Studies. , 115, 1-Missing. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103848 Reangsing, Chuntana, Schneider, Joanne Kraenzle (2020). Mindfulness Meditation for Depression across the Life Span(Zotero's generic thesis/dissertation reference - override with correct option). (Order No. 2477933875) Saint Louis University, Ann Arbor. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.

Review	Ssegonja 2019
Title	Indicated preventive interventions for depression in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis and meta-regression
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Children/adolescents aged 12–19 years. Depressive symptoms or behaviour indicating depression, not high enough to warrant a diagnosis of a depressive disorder.
Interventions	GB-CBT indicated preventive interventions with or without booster sessions.
Comparisons	Active comparators (i.e. other specified preventive treatments for depression), interventions designed to control for non-specific aspects of treatment for depression (e.g. group counselling and bibliotherapy), and passive comparators (e.g. waitlist and treatment as usual (assessment only control with the participants free to seek care)).
Outcomes	Not reported
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Not reported
Studies	Randomized controlled trial (RCT).
Databases Searched	Cochrane Library, Medline, PsycInfo, PubMed, Web of Science
Search Date	February 28, 2018
Included Studies	35
Eligible Studies	13
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Ssegonja, Richard, Nystrand, Camilla, Feldman, Inna, Sarkadi, Anna, Langenskiöld, Sophie, Jonsson, Ulf (2019). Indicated preventive interventions for depression in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis and meta-regression.; Preventive medicine. Prev Med, 118, 7-15. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.09.021

Review	Stockings 2016
Title	Preventing depression and anxiety in young people: a review of the joint efficacy of universal, selective and indicated prevention
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Participants had no existing mental diagnoses as determined by structured diagnostic interviews (e.g. World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview) or validated clinical scales. Participants were aged between 5 and 18 years.
Interventions	The intervention of the included studies focused on the prevention of the onset of major depression, dysthymia, or an anxiety disorder [including generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), panic disorder, social phobia, agoraphobia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)] or, where the intervention included both prevention and treatment, data for prevention were reported separately in a usable form.
Comparisons	Employed a control group who received either no intervention, placebo, or usual care.
Outcomes	Outcome data were collected for at least one internalizing disorder and comprised either a clinical diagnosis of at least one internalizing disorder, or clinically relevant symptoms of at least one internalizing disorder as measured using validated symptom rating scales. The data are reported in a usable form, or usable data could be obtained from the study authors.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Not reported
Studies	Assignment of individuals to the intervention and control groups in included studies was random (i.e. conducted as a randomized controlled trial). Published between 1980 and August 2014. Published in the English language.
Databases Searched	Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Medline, PsycINFO
Search Date	August 2014
Included Studies	115
Eligible Studies	29
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	CRD42014013990
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Stockings, E A, Degenhardt, L, Dobbins, T, Lee, Y Y, Erskine, H E, Whiteford, H A, Patton, G (2016). Preventing depression and anxiety in young people: a review of the joint efficacy of universal, selective and indicated prevention; Psychological Medicine. , 46(1), 11-26. doi:10.1017/S0033291715001725

Review	van Zoonen 2014
Title	Preventing the onset of major depressive disorder: a meta-analytic review of psychological interventions
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	We selected studies where participants did not meet the diagnostic criteria (according to the DSM-III-R or DSM-IV) at baseline and were ‘at risk’ of becoming depressed at follow-up—as assessed with a diagnostic instrument.
Interventions	Preventive, psychological intervention on the incidence of new cases of depressive disorders. We included studies examining universal, selective and indicated prevention. Prevention was defined as reducing the incidence of new cases of MDD. Studies focusing on preventing depressive disorders after a specific live event (e.g. postnatal depression) were included. A study was excluded when the participants were receiving a treatment for another mental disorder. Studies on maintenance treatment or relapse prevention were excluded.
Comparisons	- Compared with a control group.
Outcomes	Not reported
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Not reported
Studies	Pretest-posttest randomized controlled design.
Databases Searched	Cochrane Central, EMBASE, PsycInfo, PubMed
Search Date	March 2012
Included Studies	32
Eligible Studies	3
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	van Zoonen, Kim, Buntrock, Claudia, Ebert, David Daniel, Smit, Filip, Reynolds, Charles F. 3rd, Beekman, Aartjan T. F., Cuijpers, Pim (2014). Preventing the onset of major depressive disorder: a meta-analytic review of psychological interventions.; International journal of epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol, 43(2), 318-329. doi:10.1093/ije/dyt175

Review	Venning 2009
Title	The effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy with hopeful elements to prevent the development of depression in young people: a systematic review
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Studies that dealt with young people aged between 10 and 16 years. Youth who reported baseline levels of depression below what is considered clinically significant (i.e. according to the psychological instrument that was used). Research that was targeted at or concerned with young people who had a pre-existing Axis I disorder (e.g. depression) or were considered to be at risk or diagnosed with an Axis II to Axis V disorder (as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: Third Edition – Revised) were excluded.
Interventions	CBT to prevent the onset of depression in young people. However, as CBT is not a single therapy but rather a heterogeneous array of psychotherapies grouped under a common rubric, studies were included if they: (i) had between four (minimum) and 15 (maximum) sessions; (ii) had a follow-up period of between 3 (minimum) and 24 (maximum) months; and (iii) included at least one of the following psychological strategies: the identification of negative and irrational beliefs; the establishment of links between thoughts, feelings and behaviours; and/or the provision of tools to self-monitor thoughts, feelings and behaviours. Both universal and targeted interventions were included to determine the effectiveness of preventative CBT delivered to young people with varying levels of emotional and behavioural functioning.
Comparisons	Not reported
Outcomes	Outcomes: (i) the absence of depression in the CBT group at follow up (i.e. 3, 6, 12, 18 or 24 months), as indicated by scores below the clinical cut-off on the standardised psychological measures used; (ii) lower levels of depression at follow up reported by those in the CBT group compared with those in a control, no treatment or usual care group; or (iii) sustained lower levels of depression at follow up reported by those in the CBT group that contained multiple hopeful elements compared with a control, no treatment or usual care group, relative to the depression levels reported by those in the CBT groups that contained fewer hopeful elements. Measures: the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CESD), and the Children’s Depressive Inventory (CDI).
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Not reported
Studies	Quantitative research papers that used a randomised controlled design. Trials were excluded if less than 60% of respondents were available at follow up, because when the attrition rate in randomised controlled studies exceeds 40% the validity of the results is undermined. Papers published after 1987 were included to coincide with the revised classifications in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: Third Edition – Revised. Papers that did not have an abstract in English were excluded.
Databases Searched	CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science
Search Date	March 2007
Included Studies	12
Eligible Studies	9
Prisma Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Venning, Anthony, Kettler, Lisa, Eliott, Jaklin, Wilson, Anne (2009). The effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy with hopeful elements to prevent the development of depression in young people: a systematic review.; International journal of evidence-based healthcare. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 7(1), 15-33. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2009.00122.x

Review	Werner-Seidler 2017
Title	School-based depression and anxiety prevention programs for young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Children or adolescents with a mean age between 5 and 19 years. Age was used to categorise participants according to whether they were children (b10 years), early adolescents (10–14 years), or older adolescents (N14 years). Diagnostic status was not used to include or exclude participants, as a majority of school-based studies do not conduct a diagnostic assessment prior to program delivery.
Interventions	Included interventions were manualised psychological or psychoeducational programs, including individual, group or computerised interventions such as CBT (including relaxation and progressive muscle relaxation approaches), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), wellbeing therapy (WBT) and psycho-educational approaches. For multi-component programs, the psychological or educational component was required to constitute N75% of the programs' content. Studies were included if they used a program designed to prevent depressive or anxiety symptoms, and/or promote wellbeing. Studies evaluating drug and alcohol, physical activity, nutritional or pharmacological interventions were not eligible for inclusion. The program was required to be school-supported with recruitment occurring within and facilitated by the school. The school context could not simply provide the location for private/external programs to be delivered. There were no restrictions on whether participants were receiving other forms of therapy or medication.
Comparisons	Studies were included in which the effects of the school-based intervention was compared to either a no intervention control group or a school-as-usual control condition (NI), a waitlist control condition (WL), or an attention control condition/alternate educational/psychological condition (e.g., bibliotherapy; AC).
Outcomes	Studies were included if they reported symptoms of depression and/or anxiety at both baseline and post-intervention at a minimum. Outcome measures needed to be valid and reliable rating scales suitable for children and adolescents.
Timing	Reporting on follow-up outcomes was not required for inclusion in the current review. Waitlist control groups were required to remain waitlist for the follow-up assessment point for data to be extracted (e.g., waitlist groups could not be delivered the intervention prior to follow-up for follow-up data to be included).
Setting	Interventions needed to be school-based, which in this context refers to a program that is endorsed by the school and delivered in the classroom during school hours, or before or after school on school premises. For multi-setting studies (e.g., partly at school, partly at a primary health care setting), the school-based component needed to comprise >75% of the overall program.
Studies	Studies were eligible for inclusion if they used quantitative randomised controlled trial (RCT) methodology, including cluster RCTs. Studies were included if they were published in English language, peer-reviewed journals.
Databases Searched	Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed
Search Date	February 12, 2015
Included Studies	83
Eligible Studies	32
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	CRD42015023328
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Werner-Seidler, Aliza, Perry, Yael, Calear, Alison L., Newby, Jill M., Christensen, Helen (2017). School-based depression and anxiety prevention programs for young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis.; Clinical psychology review. Clin Psychol Rev, 51, 30-47. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.005

Review	Werner-Seidler 2021
Title	School-based depression and anxiety prevention programs: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Children or adolescents with a mean age between 5 and 19 years met inclusion criteria. As per our previous review, age was used to categorise participants according to whether they were children (<10 years), early adolescents (10–14 years), or older adolescents (>14 years).
Interventions	Included interventions were psychological or psycho-educational programs, including individual, group and face-to-face or digital interventions. For multi-component programs, the psychological or educational component was required to constitute >75% of the program content. The young person had to be the primary recipient of the intervention (i.e., programs targeted at parents or teachers were excluded). Studies were included if they used a program designed to prevent depressive or anxiety symptoms, and/or promote mental wellbeing. Studies evaluating drug and alcohol, physical activity, nutritional, or pharmacological interventions were not eligible for inclusion.
Comparisons	Studies were included in which the effect of the school-based intervention was compared to either a no-intervention control group or a school-as-usual control condition, a waitlist control condition, or an attention control condition/alternate educational/psychological condition.
Outcomes	Studies were included if they reported symptoms of depression and/ or anxiety at both baseline and post-intervention at a minimum. The two primary outcomes were depression and anxiety symptoms. Outcome measures needed to use valid and reliable rating scales suitable for children and adolescents. When more than one continuous measure was described, the primary outcome was used. If the primary outcome was not specified, the data from the measure reported first was extracted.
Timing	Reporting on follow up data was not required for inclusion in the current review.
Setting	Interventions needed to be school-based, which in this context refers to a program that is endorsed by the school and delivered in the classroom during school hours, or before or after school on school premises. The program was required to be school-supported with recruitment occurring within and facilitated by the school. That is, the school context could not simply provide the location for private/external programs to be delivered. For multi-setting studies (e.g., partly at school, partly at a primary health care setting), the school-based component needed to comprise >75% of the overall program.
Studies	Studies were eligible for inclusion if they used quantitative randomised controlled trial (RCT) methodology, including cluster RCTs. Studies were included if they were published in English language, peer-reviewed journals.
Databases Searched	Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed
Search Date	October 08, 2020
Included Studies	117
Eligible Studies	44
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	CRD42020188323
Data Availability Statement	Not reported
References	Werner-Seidler, Aliza, Spanos, Samantha, Calear, Alison L., Perry, Yael, Torok, Michelle, O'Dea, Bridianne, Christensen, Helen, Newby, Jill M. (2021). School-based depression and anxiety prevention programs: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.; Clinical psychology review. Clin Psychol Rev, 89, 102079-Missing. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102079

Review	Zhang 2023
Title	School-based Mental Health Interventions Targeting Depression or Anxiety: A Meta-analysis of Rigorous Randomized Controlled Trials for School-aged Children and Adolescents
Eligibility Criteria:
Participants	Children participating in the programs must come from K-12 school grades. This means that this study includes studies that focus on students studying in kindergarten, elementary, secondary (including middle and high schools).
Interventions	Program duration from program start to posttest must be at least four weeks to remove particularly short interventions. Intervention or instruction should be delivered by nonresearchers. Treatments had to be delivered by ordinary teachers, not by researchers, because effect sizes are inflated when researchers deliver the treatment.
Comparisons	A control group must be present.
Outcomes	Outcomes of interest measurements must include quantitative measures of either depression/depressive symptoms/depression literacy or anxiety/anxious symptoms.
Timing	Not reported
Setting	Studies must have taken place in the following countries: USA, Canada, Europe (European Union + U.K. + Switzerland + Norway), Israel, Australia, and New Zealand. This geographical restriction intends to narrow down the scope of review to countries that share similar economic and political situations.
Studies	Studies must use randomization to focus on studies of the highest level of internal validity. The level of random assignment may be schools, classes, or students. Randomized controlled trials must have at least 30 students per experimental condition to reduce bias in small studies and at least 2 teachers/schools per condition to eliminate confound due to sample size. Differences between conditions at baseline on depression/anxiety measure must be less than 0.25 standard deviations (SDs) to reduce bias from unreliable statistical analyses. Differential attrition between treatment and control groups must be less than 15% to reduce bias. Text must be available in English. Articles must be published on or after January 1st, 2000. This means that this study reviewed experimental studies in the last two decades for the most updated evidence.
Databases Searched	ERIC, Google Scholar, PsycInfo
Search Date	June 2021
Included Studies	29
Eligible Studies	11
Prisma Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data Availability Statement	Following the open science movement, the complete dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/qiyangzh/School-based-Mental-Health-Interventions-Targeting-Depression-or-Anxiety-A-Meta-analysis.
References	Zhang, Qiyang, Wang, Jun, Neitzel, Amanda (2022). School-based Mental Health Interventions Targeting Depression or Anxiety: A Meta-analysis of Rigorous Randomized Controlled Trials for School-aged Children and Adolescents.; Journal of youth and adolescence. J Youth Adolesc, , 1-23. doi:10.1007/s10964-022-01684-4 Zhang, Q., Wang, J., & Neitzel, A. (2023). School-based Mental Health Interventions Targeting Depression or Anxiety: A Meta-analysis of Rigorous Randomized Controlled Trials for School-aged Children and Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(1), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01684-4

9.5 Appendix 5. Characteristics of included studies

Study	Araya 2013
Title	School Intervention to Improve Mental Health of Students in Santiago, Chile: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Start Date	April 01, 2009
End Date	July 31, 2011
Recruitment Approach	Our sampling frame comprised all municipal secondary, mixed-sex schools, with 2 or more 1° Medio classes (equivalent to ninth grade in the United States) in Santiago. Twenty-two schools were selected using stratified random sampling. Parents were informed of the intervention and advised that they could request the withdrawal of their children from study assessments. Students were asked to sign a written consent form.
Eligibility Criteria	All students attending 1° Medio grade in the selected schools were eligible and invited to participate, and those with severe depressive episodes and/or clear suicidal risk were encouraged to seek professional advice.
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	114.2
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	2,512 students, 66 classrooms, 22 schools
Grade/School Level	9 / Secondary School
Age	14.5 (0.9)
Percent Female	44%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Chile
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	I (Yo), Think (Pienso), Feel (Siento), and Act (Actuo)
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	ISRCTN19466209
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Araya, R., Fritsch, R., Spears, M., Rojas, G., Martinez, V., Barroilhet, S., Vöhringer, P., Gunnell, D., Stallard, P., Guajardo, V., Gaete, J., Noble, S., & Montgomery, A. A. (2013). School Intervention to Improve Mental Health of Students in Santiago, Chile: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(11), 1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.2361 Araya, R., Montgomery, A. A., Fritsch, R., Gunnell, D., Stallard, P., Noble, S., Martinez, V., Barroilhet, S., Vohringer, P., Guajardo, V., Cova, F., Gaete, J., Gomez, A., & Rojas, G. (2011). School-based intervention to improve the mental health of low-income, secondary school students in Santiago, Chile (YPSA): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 12(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-49

Study	Arnarson 2009
Title	Prevention of depression among Icelandic adolescents
Start Date	2001
End Date	2006
Recruitment Approach	Soon after the beginning of each school year, 9th grade (ages 14–15) students were asked to complete the CDI and CASQ in classroom screening sessions. The school psychologists informed the parents of anyone who scored over the 90th percentile on the CDI that their child was at considerable risk for clinical problems, and they were offered referrals to the Icelandic mental health system for further evaluation and/or treatment. Those who met the screening criteria and who agreed to participate were then interviewed to identify those who had a previous or current MDD, dysthymia, or other psychiatric disorders. Parents were informed and appropriate clinical referrals were offered when a student was diagnosed with current MDD, current substance abuse or dependence, psychotic symptoms, OCD, anorexia, or reported serious suicidal ideation or plans; no participants met criteria for dysthymia at the time of the initial interview. No significant problems were encountered with this system, and parents and school officials expressed satisfaction with this procedure, which they viewed as a valuable service.
Eligibility Criteria	Participants were selected as being “at risk” and invited for further participation if they scored between the 75th and 90th percentile on CDI or at the 75th percentile or higher on the negative composite of the CASQ (subjects who met one or both of these two criteria included all subjects who scored at the 75th percentile or higher on the CASQ-Positive Composite). We did not include individuals who scored higher than the 90th percentile on the CDI in the preliminary studies (even though they likely have the highest risk for development of MDD) because our primary purposes were program development and evaluation of the feasibility of implementation of the program. Furthermore, we did not have adequate psychiatric coverage to assure treatment as part of the project for individuals who were diagnosed with MDD at the pretest, and the rate of MDD is highest among individuals who score in the top 10% on the CDI (Kovacs, 1992). During the earlier pilot work and based on both ethical and practical reasons, it was decided to exclude students who met criteria for any major depression, dysthymia, bipolar disorder I or II, cyclothymia, anorexia, bulimia, psychotic disorder, alcohol or substance dependence, ADHD, ODD, or conduct disorder
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	171 students
Grade/School Level	9 / High School
Age	14 (14 to 15)
Percent Female	52%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Iceland
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Prevention Program
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Depression diagnosis
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Arnarson, E. Ö., & Craighead, W. E. (2009). Prevention of depression among Icelandic adolescents. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(7), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.03.011 Arnarson, E. O., & Craighead, W. E. (2011). Prevention of depression among Icelandic adolescents: A 12-month follow-up. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49(3), 170–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.12.008

Study	Barry 2017
Title	Assessing the effectiveness of a cognitive behavioural group coaching intervention in reducing symptoms of depression among adolescent males in a school setting
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Twenty-seven Transition Year pupils of an Irish secondary school, all male and all aged 15–16, were recruited for participation in this study." "Recruitment of participants took place in the school, and 27 pupils assented to participate, while their parents/guardians provided consent."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	27 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	Not reported / Secondary School
Age	15.74 (0.45)
Percent Female	0%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	0% AIAN, 0% Asian, 0% Black, 0% Latinx, 0% NHPI, 96% White, 0% Mixed, 4% Other
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Ireland
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	CRAIC (Control, Responsibility, Awareness, Impetus, and Confidence)
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Barry, M., Murphy, M., & O’Donovan, H. (2017). Assessing the effectiveness of a cognitive behavioural group coaching intervention in reducing symptoms of depression among adolescent males in a school setting. International Coaching Psychology Review, 12, 101–109.

Study	Briere 2019
Title	Effectiveness Trial of Brief Indicated Cognitive-Behavioral Group Depression Prevention in French-Canadian Secondary Schools
Start Date	2016
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Participants were 74 secondary school students (66% female) aged 14–18 (M = 15.50; SD = 1.12) from three large public French secondary schools located in disadvantaged areas of Montreal, Canada. Sample characteristics are reported in Table 1. Participants were recruited in Spring 2016. Research assistants toured all classes to briefly present the study and set up a booth to inform and recruit participants during lunch time. Posters were hung on school walls. School staff were also instructed to encourage participants to contact the research team if they thought the study could be relevant for them. Interested participants completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) screener (Radloff, 1977) and, as in the previous efficacy trial (Stice et al., 2008), those with scores of 20 or above were invited to participate in a pretest interview with a research assistant at their school. The CES-D is further described in measures. Students with current MDD were excluded and offered referrals to external resources."
Eligibility Criteria	"Students with current MDD were excluded and offered referrals to external resources"
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	74 students, 3 schools
Grade/School Level	Not reported / Secondary School
Age	15.5 (1.1200000000000001)
Percent Female	66%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Canada
Geographic Area	Rural
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	CB Group
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Brière, F. N., Reigner, A., Yale-Soulière, G., & Turgeon, L. (2019). Effectiveness Trial of Brief Indicated Cognitive-Behavioral Group Depression Prevention in French-Canadian Secondary Schools. School Mental Health, 11(4), 728–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09316-2

Study	Brown 2019
Title	School-based early intervention for anxiety and depression in older adolescents: A feasibility randomised controlled trial of a self-referral stress management workshop programme (“DISCOVER”)
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"We approached schools within the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, which rank respectively as the 22nd and 23rd most deprived out of 326 UK boroughs (Office for National Statistics, 2015). Approximately 85% in Lambeth and 76% of secondary school students in Southwark are from BME groups (Office for National Statistics, 2015). Schools were either approached directly or via a local network of head teachers and contact was then made with Heads of Sixth forms. In total, 16 schools were approached, 12 schools agreed to take part in the two boroughs but 2 did not proceed and 10 (62.5%) finally participated."
Eligibility Criteria	"Eligible students were 16–19 year olds recruited from Sixth forms i.e. academic years 12 and 13 in these schools. Participants needed to be fluent in English, not have severe learning difficulties, and be available to attend the scheduled one-day workshop. No clinical criteria were used but participants needed to refer themselves to the workshop. Participants judged as being at acute risk (i.e. in need of immediate mental health care) following a risk assessment were excluded. All participants gave written informed consent; parental consent was not required as participants were 16 years and over."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	155 students, 10 schools
Grade/School Level	12 / Secondary School
Age	17.3 (0.77)
Percent Female	81%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	0% AIAN, 8% Asian, 45% Black, 0% NHPI, 32% White, 5% Mixed, 10% Other
Percent ELL	20%
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United Kingdom
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	DISCOVER
Comparison Group	Waitlist
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms, Well-being
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2016.02.003
Data/Code Availability	"Data will be made available upon request"
References	Brown, J. S. L., Blackshaw, E., Stahl, D., Fennelly, L., McKeague, L., Sclare, I., & Michelson, D. (2019). School-based early intervention for anxiety and depression in older adolescents: A feasibility randomised controlled trial of a self-referral stress management workshop programme (“DISCOVER”). Journal of Adolescence, 71, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.11.009

Study	Bursuk 1998
Title	The effects of a school-based cognitive-behavioral intervention program on the depression scores of sixth-grade students: A comparison outcome study
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Permission for this study was obtained from the Assistant Superintendent of a medium-size school district in Tucson, Arizona. Permission was also obtained from the principal of the middle school where the subjects were recruited. Teachers in the middle school were notified of the nature of the study and were given the opportunity to ask any questions or express any concerns they had regarding the study. A detailed letter was sent to the parents of all sixth grade students at the middle school informing them that their child may be participating in the learned optimism program. This letter described the nature of the learned optimism program and the nature of the research being conducted. It also indicated that parents must provide signed consent for their child to participate (see Appendices A, B, and C). Six parents denied permission."
Eligibility Criteria	"The participants were divided into four groups. Placement into a group was determined by the class in which the student was enrolled during a particular class period (e.g., Social Studies, fifth period). All learned optimism groups met during fifth or sixth period. Group 1 was a treatment group (learned optimism program). Group 2 was an attention-placebo group. Group 3 was a delayed-treatment group, and Group 4 was a no-treatment control group. The assignment of subjects to experimental groups based on class periods ensured that demographic characteristics were equally represented among experimental groups."
Research Design	Quasi-experimental design
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	4
Sample Size	201 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	6 / Middle School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Arizona)
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Learned Optimism Program
Comparison Group	Active: Delayed Treatment; Attention Control; TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Serious
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Bursuk, L. I. (1998). The effects of a school-based cognitive-behavioral intervention program on the depression scores of sixth-grade students: A comparison outcome study [Ph.D., The University of Arizona]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304415848/abstract/FAF3189B93CD432APQ/1

Study	Calear 2009
Title	The YouthMood Project: A cluster randomized controlled trial of an online cognitive behavioral program with adolescents
Start Date	2005
End Date	2007
Recruitment Approach	Thirty-two schools from across Australia were recruited during 2005 to participate in the YouthMood Project. Schools were recruited directly from the Australian Capital Territory, where the research team is located. Additional schools were recruited from a national mental health in-service program for teachers. The recruit-ment process resulted in a mix of public, private, coeducational, single-sex, metropolitan, and rural schools from six Australian states. Information and consent forms outlining the details of the trial and the school’s assignment to either the intervention or the control condition were distributed to all participating students and their parents, with written informed consent required for the completion of questionnaires. A conservative estimate, based on classroom enrollments, suggests that approximately 52% of parents and students consented to participate in the trial. The consent rates within schools ranged from 32% to 100% in the intervention condition (Mdn 59%) and between 16% and 93% in the wait-list control condition (Mdn 50%).
Eligibility Criteria	Participants must: 1. Be students in Year 9 or 10; 2. Have access to the Internet during class time; 3. Be willing to participate in the study, as well as obtain parental consent.
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	49.2
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	1,477 students, 32 schools
Grade/School Level	9, 10, 11 / Secondary School
Age	14.34 (0.75)
Percent Female	56%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	6%
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Rural, Urban
School Type	Public, Private
Active Intervention	MoodGYM
Comparison Group	Waitlist
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	ISRCTN67189839
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Calear, A. L. (2009). The YouthMood Project: A cluster randomized controlled trial of an online cognitive behavioral program with adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(6), 1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017391 Calear AL, Christensen H, Mackinnon A, Griffiths KM. Adherence to the MoodGYM program: Outcomes and predictors for an adolescent school-based population. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2013;147(1–3):338-344.

Study	Calvete 2019
Title	The Effect of an Intervention Teaching Adolescents that People can Change on Depressive Symptoms, Cognitive Schemas, and Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis Hormones
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"We invited a random sample of 20 high schools in Bizkaia (Basque Country, Spain) to participate in the study. Of these, 10 agreed to participate. The eligible participants were enrolled in these 10 high schools and understood Spanish or Basque (N = 1329). Of these, 462 were excluded (exclusion criteria are indicated in Fig. 1). Randomization took place on the day of the intervention, following the pretest, with 456 participants allocated to the experimental condition and 411 to the control condition (n = 867)."
Eligibility Criteria	"Excluded (N = 462) • No parental consent (N = 349) • Declined to participate (N= 24) • Were not there the day of the intervention or did not want to complete the intervention task (N = 54) • Did not complete outcome measures (N = 2) • Were not in Grade 8-10 (N = 33)"
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	867 students, 10 schools
Grade/School Level	8, 9, 10 / High School
Age	14.56 (0.97)
Percent Female	48%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	0% AIAN, 0% Asian, 0% Black, 100% Latinx, 0% NHPI, 0% White, 0% Mixed, 0% Other
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Spain
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Experimental Intervention
Comparison Group	Active: Control intervention
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Raw data are here: https://osf.io/w7nbr
References	Calvete, E., Fernández-Gonzalez, L., Orue, I., Echezarraga, A., Royuela-Colomer, E., Cortazar, N., Muga, J., Longa, M., & Yeager, D. S. (2019). The Effect of an Intervention Teaching Adolescents that People can Change on Depressive Symptoms, Cognitive Schemas, and Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis Hormones. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 47(9), 1533–1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00538-1

Study	Cardemil 2007a
Title	The prevention of depressive symptoms in low-income, minority children: Two-year follow-up
Start Date	1996
End Date	2000
Recruitment Approach	"The recruitment procedure at the two schools was identical: In the fall of 1996 and 1997, the parents of all the 5th and 6th grade children were contacted by mail and invited to participate in the program. In this letter, they were provided with information about a Coping Skills Program designed to help their children better handle difficult situations at school and at home. Parents were also told that the school was supportive of the program and that if they agreed to participate, their child would be randomly assigned to participate in either a Coping Skills Program or a notreatment condition. No mention was made of depression prevention in this letter. Parents were informed that their child would receive a one-time payment of $5 for participating during the first year, a one-time payment of $10 for the second year, and a one-time payment of $15 for the third year, irrespective of the condition to which he or she was assigned. This payment was made directly to the child at the end of each academic year."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	49 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	5, 6, 7, 8 / Middle School
Age	11.35
Percent Female	46%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	0% AIAN, 0% Asian, 0% Black, 100% Latinx, 0% NHPI, 0% White, 0% Mixed, 0% Other
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Pennsylvania)
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Penn Resiliency Program
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Cardemil, E. V., Reivich, K. J., Beevers, C. G., Seligman, M. E. P., & James, J. (2007). The prevention of depressive symptoms in low-income, minority children: Two-year follow-up. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(2), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.03.010 Cardemil EV. The prevention of depressive symptoms in inner-city, minority middle school students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2000) Dissertation Abstracts International. 2000;61:1627. Cardemil, E. V., Reivich, K. J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). The prevention of depressive symptoms in low-income minority middle school students. Prevention & Treatment, 5(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.5.1.58a

Study	Cardemil 2007b
Title	The prevention of depressive symptoms in low-income, minority children: Two-year follow-up
Start Date	1996
End Date	2000
Recruitment Approach	"The recruitment procedure at the two schools was identical: In the fall of 1996 and 1997, the parents of all the 5th and 6th grade children were contacted by mail and invited to participate in the program. In this letter, they were provided with information about a Coping Skills Program designed to help their children better handle difficult situations at school and at home. Parents were also told that the school was supportive of the program and that if they agreed to participate, their child would be randomly assigned to participate in either a Coping Skills Program or a notreatment condition. No mention was made of depression prevention in this letter. Parents were informed that their child would receive a one-time payment of $5 for participating during the first year, a one-time payment of $10 for the second year, and a one-time payment of $15 for the third year, irrespective of the condition to which he or she was assigned. This payment was made directly to the child at the end of each academic year. We randomly assigned the 168 children in both schools who agreed to participate to either the prevention condition or the no-treatment control condition."
Eligibility Criteria	Children at the schools were all eligible with parental assent
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	103 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	5, 6 / Middle School
Age	10.94
Percent Female	56%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	0% AIAN, 0% Asian, 100% Black, 0% Latinx, 0% NHPI, 0% White, 0% Mixed, 0% Other
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Pennsylvania)
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Penn Resiliency Program
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Cardemil, E. V., Reivich, K. J., Beevers, C. G., Seligman, M. E. P., & James, J. (2007). The prevention of depressive symptoms in low-income, minority children: Two-year follow-up. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(2), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.03.010 Cardemil EV. The prevention of depressive symptoms in inner-city, minority middle school students. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2000) Dissertation Abstracts International. 2000;61:1627. Cardemil, E. V., Reivich, K. J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). The prevention of depressive symptoms in low-income minority middle school students. Prevention & Treatment, 5(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.5.1.58a

Study	Cecchini 1997
Title	An interpersonal and cognitive-behavioral approach to childhood depression: A school-based primary prevention study
Start Date	1995
End Date	2000
Recruitment Approach	"Schools were recruited through contact with the Box Elder School District Office and teachers were 59 specifically contacted for their permission, so as to ensure their cooperation. Parents of all students in participating classrooms were notified by letter informing them of the modification to their child's regular Healthy Lifestyles curriculum. They were informed about the assessment procedures and the possibility that their child may be selected for the intervention program. Parents were instructed to return an enclosed Waiver of Consent form if they did not want their child to participate in the assessment procedures or the modified curriculum. Children were also informed of the current project prior to onset."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	110 students, 4 schools
Grade/School Level	6 / Elementary School
Age	11.7 (0.46)
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Utah)
Geographic Area	Rural
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Treatment Program
Comparison Group	NR
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Cecchini, T. B. (1997). An interpersonal and cognitive-behavioral approach to childhood depression: A school-based primary prevention study [Ph.D., Utah State University]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304420573/abstract/63822484C2FC4E3CPQ/1 Johnson, N. C. (2000). A follow-up study of a primary prevention program targeting childhood depression(Doctoral Dissertation, Utah State University). (UMI No. 1402700)

Study	Challen 2014
Title	The UK Resilience Programme: a school-based universal nonrandomized pragmatic controlled trial
Start Date	2006
End Date	2010
Recruitment Approach	"Consent for participation in the evaluation was sought from both parents and students. First, schools wrote to parents giving information about the intervention and evaluation and offering them an opt-out for the evaluation, using text agreed by DCSF and the research group. Very few parents chose to opt out. We cannot be sure of the exact numbers because schools managed this process and did not always report reasons for questionnaire nonresponse. Students could themselves choose not to fill in questionnaires, and could decide on the day of the survey. All students in the intervention group participated in UKRP workshops unless they left the school, were long-term absent, or moved to another (control) class, as the program itself was incorporated into the school curriculum and was therefore not optional. Participants were not blinded to condition allocation."
Eligibility Criteria	"All students in the intervention group participated in UKRP workshops unless they left the school, were long-term absent, or moved to another (control) class, as the program itself was incorporated into the school curriculum and was therefore not optional. Participants were not blinded to condition allocation."
Research Design	Quasi-experimental design
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	2,910 students, 22 schools
Grade/School Level	Not reported / Secondary School
Age	11.51 (10.9129)
Percent Female	48%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	69% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	29%
Country (State)	United Kingdom
Geographic Area	Rural, Suburban, Urban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	UKPR
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Moderate
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Challen, A. R., Machin, S. J., & Gillham, J. E. (2014). The UK Resilience Programme: A school-based universal nonrandomized pragmatic controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034854

Study	Clarke 1993a
Title	School-Based Primary Prevention of Depressive Symptomatology in Adolescents: Findings from Two Studies
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	All students enrolled in mandatory health classes were assigned to prevention or control
Eligibility Criteria	None listed
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	622 students, 25 classrooms, 3 schools
Grade/School Level	9, 10 / Middle School and High School
Age	15.35
Percent Female	42%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	90% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Not reported)
Geographic Area	Suburban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Preventive Curriculum
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Clarke, G. N., Hawkins, W., Murphy, M., & Sheeber, L. (1993). School-Based Primary Prevention of Depressive Symptomatology in Adolescents: Findings from Two Studies. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489382004

Study	Clarke 1993b
Title	School-Based Primary Prevention of Depressive Symptomatology in Adolescents: Findings from Two Studies
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	All students in the three schools were eligible
Eligibility Criteria	9th and 10th grade students in the schools were included
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	380 students, 14 classrooms, 4 schools
Grade/School Level	9, 10 / Middle School and High School
Age	15.14
Percent Female	46%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Not reported)
Geographic Area	Suburban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Preventive Health Class
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Clarke, G. N., Hawkins, W., Murphy, M., & Sheeber, L. (1993). School-Based Primary Prevention of Depressive Symptomatology in Adolescents: Findings from Two Studies. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489382004

Study	Congleton 1995
Title	The effect of a cognitive-behavioral group intervention on the locus of control, attributional style, and depressive symptoms of middle school students
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Stage; 2. Parents of students who were among those nominated by each teacher received informed consent letters in the mail regarding participation in a study designed to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 help adolescents understand and control their emotions (a sample form is provided in Appendix B). Student addresses and phone numbers were provided by the school. Those who do not respond within one week were contacted by phone by the experimenter to encourage participation."
Eligibility Criteria	"The sample for this study was drawn from a population of approximately 500 regular education students in the 7th and 8th grades at a rural middle school located in the central region of Kentucky." Parental consent was required
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	15 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	7, 8 / Middle School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	40%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Kentucky)
Geographic Area	Rural
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Adolescent Coping with Depression
Comparison Group	Waitlist
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Congleton, A. B. (1995). The effect of a cognitive-behavioral group intervention on the locus of control, attributional style, and depressive symptoms of middle school students [Ph.D., University of Kentucky]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304216830/abstract/DB1A3F22DBE74677PQ/1

Study	García-Escalera 2020
Title	The Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders in Adolescents (UP-A) Adapted as a School-Based Anxiety and Depression Prevention Program: An Initial Cluster Randomized Wait-List-Controlled Trial
Start Date	2016
End Date	2017
Recruitment Approach	Not reported
Eligibility Criteria	"The inclusion criteria for the participants were (a) both the adolescent and at least one parent or legal guardian provided written, informed consent, and (b) having Spanish proficiency based on teacher reporting. No incentives were provided for participating in this project either to the adolescents or the school."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	152 students, 5 classrooms, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	9, 10 / Secondary School
Age	15.05 (1.1399999999999999)
Percent Female	54%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	0% AIAN, 0% Asian, 0% Black, 100% Latinx, 0% NHPI, 0% White, 0% Mixed, 0% Other
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Spain
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	UP-A
Comparison Group	Waitlist
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	NCT03123991
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	García-Escalera, J., Valiente, R. M., Sandín, B., Ehrenreich-May, J., Prieto, A., & Chorot, P. (2020). The Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders in Adolescents (UP-A) Adapted as a School-Based Anxiety and Depression Prevention Program: An Initial Cluster Randomized Wait-List-Controlled Trial. Behavior Therapy, 51(3), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2019.08.003

Study	Harnett 2004
Title	Training school personnel to implement a universal school-based prevention of depression program under real-world conditions
Start Date	1998
End Date	2001
Recruitment Approach	"All students in Year 9 of School A (n=98) were invited to participate in the RAP Program. The program was optional, but was implemented during school hours as part of the school curriculum. Only one student declined to participate. One other student who was receiving treatment for a mental health problem participated in the program but data for this student were not included in the analyses. The remaining 96 students of School A received the RAP program during class time. There were eight classes of students with class sizes ranging between 10 and 14 students. The eight facilitators each implemented the RAP program with one class of students."
Eligibility Criteria	"One other student who was receiving treatment for a mental health problem participated in the program but data for this student were not included in the analyses."
Research Design	Quasi-experimental design
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	212 students, 2 schools
Grade/School Level	9 / Secondary School
Age	13.58 (0.61)
Percent Female	100%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Private
Active Intervention	RAP Program
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Moderate
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Harnett, P. H., & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Training school personnel to implement a universal school-based prevention of depression program under real-world conditions. Journal of School Psychology, 42(5), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.06.004

Study	Hodas 2015
Title	An Investigation of the Relationship Between Positive and Negative Mental Health Factors and Academic Performance Among Early Adolescent Girls
Start Date	2011
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Parents and students were given information about a strengths and resilience program for girls that would be offered at their daughters’ school. Participants were recruited in the fall of 2011 and 2012. Families who were interested were provided with a recruitment flyer and two copies of a parent consent and student assent form. Only students who returned signed parental consent and student assent forms were permitted to enroll in the study"
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	16 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	7, 8 / Middle School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Not reported)
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Private
Active Intervention	Girls in Transition (GT)
Comparison Group	Waitlist
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms, Educational achievement
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Hodas, R. (2015). An Investigation of the Relationship Between Positive and Negative Mental Health Factors and Academic Performance Among Early Adolescent Girls. https://scholarshare.temple.edu/handle/20.500.12613/3008

Study	Horowitz 2007
Title	Prevention of depressive symptoms in adolescents: A randomized trial of cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal prevention programs
Start Date	2004
End Date	2005
Recruitment Approach	"Students in wellness classes in three suburban/rural high schools were recruited at school to participate in the study. Parental consent and student assent were obtained for 380 of a possible 600 students (63%)."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	11
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	380 students, 3 schools
Grade/School Level	9, 10, 11, 12 / High School
Age	14.43 (0.7)
Percent Female	54%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	1% AIAN, 1% Asian, 13% Black, 2% Latinx, 79% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Tennessee)
Geographic Area	Rural, Suburban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Cognitive-behavior program (CB); interpersonal psychotherapy–adolescent skills training (IPT-AST)
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Horowitz, J. L., Garber, J., Ciesla, J. A., Young, J. F., & Mufson, L. (2007). Prevention of depressive symptoms in adolescents: A randomized trial of cognitive-behavioral and interpersonal prevention programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.693 Horowitz JL. Preventing depression in adolescents: A prospective trial of two universal prevention programs. Dissertation Abstracts International. 2008;68:8399.

Study	Johnson 2016
Title	Effectiveness of a school-based mindfulness program for transdiagnostic prevention in young adolescents
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	A range of urban coeducational secondary schools in Adelaide, South Australia who were either known to the researchers, had expressed interest in being involved in research or were conveniently located were contacted by email with telephone follow up, and four schools (one private, three public) agreed to participate. One public primary school also expressed interest in taking part and was included in the study. Active (opt-in) consent was sought from both students and their parents or guardians for use of questionnaire data only, as the Mindfulness Program was considered standard socio-emotional learning curriculum.
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	18.12
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	308 students, 5 schools
Grade/School Level	7, 8 / Primary School and Secondary School
Age	13.63 (0.43)
Percent Female	48%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public, Private
Active Intervention	.b (“Dot be”)
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms, Well-being
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Johnson, C., Burke, C., Brinkman, S., & Wade, T. (2016). Effectiveness of a school-based mindfulness program for transdiagnostic prevention in young adolescents. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 81, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.03.002

Study	Johnson 2017
Title	A randomized controlled evaluation of a secondary school mindfulness program for early adolescents: Do we have the recipe right yet?
Start Date	2015
End Date	2016
Recruitment Approach	Research approval was granted by each School Principal, the South Australian Department for Education and Child Development, and the Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee of Flinders University. Opt-out consent was approved.
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	555 students, 4 schools
Grade/School Level	Not reported / Secondary School
Age	13.44 (0.33)
Percent Female	45%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public, Private
Active Intervention	.b (“Dot be”) without parental involvement; .b (“Dot be”) with parental involvement
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms, Well-being
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	ACTRN12615001052527
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Johnson, C., Burke, C., Brinkman, S., & Wade, T. (2017). A randomized controlled evaluation of a secondary school mindfulness program for early adolescents: Do we have the recipe right yet? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 99, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2017.09.001

Study	Johnstone 2014
Title	Prevention of depression and anxiety symptoms in adolescents: 42 and 54 months follow-up of the Aussie Optimism Program-Positive Thinking Skills
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Twelve schools were randomly selected from the largest (top 50%) and poorest (bottom 30%) schools in the WA Department of Education and Training Schools Database, which sampled schools from the districts of Swan and Canning. Each of the 12 schools was then matched to another school in the data base in terms of SES, class size, and school size. Informed consent was obtained from 22 of the 24 schools (11 matched pairs). Active and passive consent of children and parentswas sought after the study was fully explained to them via information and consent forms. The first information and consent form required the active consent of participants, while those not responding to the first form were sent an additional information and consent form one week later seeking passive consent. This activeepassive consent process was aimed at increasing participation rates. Moreover, past researchers (e.g. Henry, Smith, & Hopkins, 2002) have found that those children whose parents do not respond to active consent procedures may be more at risk of mental health problems than those who do return the forms, thus suggesting that the employment of an active consent only procedure may reduce the representativeness of the resulting sample. This activeepassive consent process resulted in parental consent being refused for 111 children. The universal program was completed by all available consenting students within the classroom as part of their regular Health Education class."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	910 students, 24 schools
Grade/School Level	4 / Elementary School
Age	8.75 (0.36)
Percent Female	49%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Aussie Optimism Program
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Johnstone, J., Rooney, R. M., Hassan, S., & Kane, R. T. (2014). Prevention of depression and anxiety symptoms in adolescents: 42 and 54 months follow-up of the Aussie Optimism Program-Positive Thinking Skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00364 Rooney, R., Hassan, S., Kane, R., Roberts, C. M., & Nesa, M. (2013). Reducing depression in 9–10 year old children in low SES schools: A longitudinal universal randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(12), 845–854. Rooney, R., Morrison, D., Hassan, S., Kane, R., Roberts, C., & Mancini, V. (2013b). Prevention of internalizing disorders in 9–10 year old children: Efficacy of the Aussie Optimism Positive Thinking Skills Program at 30-month follow-up. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–10.

Study	Johnstone 2020
Title	A pilot investigation of universal school-based prevention programs for anxiety and depression symptomology in children: A randomized controlled trial
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Recruitment was initiated by approaching geographically accessible metropolitan and rural public and private school principals or counselors by email to invite their school to participate in the project. The principal researcher then attended a meeting with the relevant school staff member. Following approval from the school principals, whole schools were randomly allocated to either the ER or BA programs, or the UCC condition. The schools themselves selected the classes for participation. Information sheets and consent forms were sent home with students of those classes to obtain consent from parents/caregivers. Participation required a signed consent from parents/guardians and students (i.e., opt‐in), before the commencement of the first wave of data collection. Parents/guardians were also asked to provide their postal address so that follow‐up questionnaires could be sent to their child in the event that they moved schools during the study. Data collection took place on school grounds, at times convenient for the school."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	295 students, 5 schools
Grade/School Level	Not reported / Primary School
Age	11.04 (1.4)
Percent Female	53%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Rural, Suburban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	ER Program; BA Program
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	NA
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Johnstone, K. M., Middleton, T., Kemps, E., & Chen, J. (2020). A pilot investigation of universal school-based prevention programs for anxiety and depression symptomology in children: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(7), 1193–1216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22926

Study	Kindt 2014
Title	Evaluation of a School-Based Depression Prevention Program among Adolescents from Low-Income Areas: A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial
Start Date	2011
End Date	2013
Recruitment Approach	"Eligible participants for the study were adolescents in the 7th and 8th grades (age 11–16 years, M = 13.42, SD = 0.77) attending secondary schools in the Netherlands that met the criterion that at least 30% of their pupils lived in low-income areas. A list of these schools was obtained from the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science based on the average household income in the postal code area where the adolescent lived. Schools received a written invitation to join the study. The principals were asked to allow the teachers of the experimental group to complete the training in the OVK program and implement the OVK lessons within the curriculum. After two weeks, the schools were contacted by telephone. If they agreed to participate, a member of the research team visited them and selected classes. The parents received a letter about the content and the aim of the program, describing the study procedures. Parents were asked to provide permission for their child’s participation through passive consent. The data were not collected from adolescents whose parents did not give permission. Yet, their attendance in the program was obligatory, since it was included in the regular school curriculum. "
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	1,343 students, 61 classrooms, 12 schools
Grade/School Level	7, 8 / Secondary School
Age	13.42 (0.77)
Percent Female	52%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Netherlands
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	OVK
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Dutch Trial Register NTR3110
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Kindt, K. C. M., Kleinjan, M., Janssens, J. M. A. M., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2014). Evaluation of a School-Based Depression Prevention Program among Adolescents from Low-Income Areas: A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110505273 Kindt K, Scholte R, Schuck K, Kleinjan M, Janssens J. Examining Reciprocal Associations Between a Negative Cognitive Style and Depressive Symptoms in Early Adolescence. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy. 2015;8(1):78-94. Kindt KC, Kleinjan M, Janssens JM, Scholte RH. Cross-Lagged Associations Between Adolescents' Depressive Symptoms and Negative Cognitive Style: The Role of Negative Life Events. Journal of youth and adolescence. 2015;44(11):2141-2153. Kindt KCM, van Zundert R, Engels RCME. Evaluation of a Dutch school-based depression prevention program for youths in highrisk neighborhoods: study protocol of a two-armed randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:212.

Study	Kowalenko 2005
Title	Short-term Effectiveness of a School-based Early Intervention Program for Adolescent Depression
Start Date	1999
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	All government high schools in the Northern Sydney area were contacted by the Department of Education and Training, inviting them to indicate interest in involvement in the ACE project. This consultation process, which also involved presentations at regional principals’ and school counsellors’ meetings, resulted in the selection of 11 schools. The schools consisted of two private single-sex schools (one male, one female), one selective boys’ school, one non-selective girls’ school, and seven co-educational public schools. At this point, the school principals and staff were individually consulted over all aspects of the implementation of the ACE program in their schools. Issues included: timing of the sessions; removing students from classes; interaction with other timetabling demands; release time for group leaders (school counsellors); costs; and communication with, and seeking permission from parents. Consultation also took place with the five local child and adolescent mental health teams in Northern Sydney Health, concerning the provision of adolescent counsellors as group leaders. The involvement of local community mental health services in the implementation of ACE helped to establish an ongoing working relationship between schools and local health workers. The project was introduced to students at the 11 schools through a series of year 9 assemblies, attended by school counsellors and community mental health service counsellors. Year 9 students were given an overview of the evaluation project, and invited to participate in the screening procedure. Students were informed that they were taking part in a survey to gain information about their age group’s ways of thinking about, and coping with, problems and emotions. They were also informed that certain students would be selected to participate in trialling a new group program looking at ways to deal with typical adolescent problems. At all stages, the problem-solving, strategy-building focus of the program was emphasized. Active consent was sought from parents by all but one school (a non-government school). High school students (mean age 14.5 years) were screened for elevated depressive symptomatology using the CDI (Kovacs, 1992). Participants who scored above the epidemiologically based cut-off of 18 (Kovacs, 1992) on the CDI were invited to participate in the study. Participants were assessed for depressive symptomatology, coping skills and automatic thoughts. Grade 9 students and their parents at 11 high schools were asked to consent to screening using the CDI (Kovacs, 1992). Eight hundred and eighty-two students (55% of eligible students) returned consent forms and completed the CDI. As no data could be collected from students and parents who declined, it is not possible to ascertain differences between participants and non-participants. One hundred and seventy-nine students who scored above the CDI cut-off (of 18) (20% of screened students; 66 boys; 113 girls), were identified as at highrisk for depression. School counsellors interviewed the high-risk students and consent to participate in the study was obtained from 143 (80%; mean age 14 years, 7 months; 50 boys; 93 girls) of these students and their parents. Reasons for declining consent included parents not wanting students to miss regular classes, students leaving the school, and students not feeling comfortable about being in a small group with peers. Of those identified as being at-risk and invited to attend the ACE program, 82% of females and 76% of males agreed to participate.
Eligibility Criteria	Included if they scored above the CDI cut-off (of 18)
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	13
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	143 students, 11 schools
Grade/School Level	9 / High School
Age	14.5
Percent Female	65%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Private, Public
Active Intervention	Adolescents Coping with Emotions (ACE)
Comparison Group	Waitlist
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Kowalenko, N., Rapee, R. M., Simmons, J., Wignall, A., Hoge, R., Whitefield, K., Starling, J., Stonehouse, R., & Baillie, A. J. (2005). Short-term Effectiveness of a School-based Early Intervention Program for Adolescent Depression. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 10(4), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104505056311

Study	Listug-Lunde 2013
Title	A cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression in rural American Indian middle school students
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Next, caregivers of all 36 students who met inclusion criteria were contacted via letter or follow-up phone call. Information regarding their child’s depression screening, local counseling services, and information on the CWD-A class and study was provided. If a caregiver provided written consent for his/her child’s participation, the PI contacted the child, provided information American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research Copyright: Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health Colorado School of Public Health/University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (www.ucdenver.edu/caianh) 22 VOLUME 20, NUMBER 1 about the class, and asked if he/she assented to participate. All students whose caregivers provided written consent assented to participate in the class. "
Eligibility Criteria	"First, all students attending grades 6-8 of the middle school (N = 131), including special education classes, were screened in the regular classroom setting for depressive symptoms with the CDI (Kovacs, 1992) as part of a schoolwide biyearly depression screening. Students with raw scores of 15 or higher on the CDI, indicating moderate levels of depression, were considered for inclusion in the CWD-A class. "
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	19 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	5, 6, 7, 8 / Middle School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (North Dakota)
Geographic Area	Rural
School Type	Private
Active Intervention	CWD-A
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	"Detailed information on the class can be found in the treatment manual and is available upon request from the author. "
References	Listug-Lunde, L., Vogeltanz-Holm, N., & Collins, J. (2013). A cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression in rural American Indian middle school students. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research (Online), 20(1), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.5820/aian.2001.2013.16 Listug-Lunde LB (2005) A cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression in Native American middle-school students. Unpublished doctoral thesis: University of North Dakota.

Study	Logsdon 2005
Title	Postpartum Depression and Social Support in Adolescents
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"After obtaining approval from the university human studies committee and the research office of the school system, the first author attended six sections of childbirth education classes each of three semesters to invite students to participate in the study. Informed consent was obtained from each student and her parent/guardian. The school outlined how student contact and consent processes were to occur in the study."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	4
Sample Size	128 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 / Not reported
Age	16 (1.3)
Percent Female	100%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	56% Black, 38% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Not reported)
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Charter
Active Intervention	video; pamphlet; pamphlet and video
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Logsdon, C. M., Birkimer, J. C., Simpson, T., & Looney, S. (2005). Postpartum Depression and Social Support in Adolescents. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 34(1), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0884217504272802

Study	Mackay 2017
Title	A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial of a School-Based Resilience Intervention to Prevent Depressive Symptoms for Young Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Mixed Methods Analysis
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Eighteen of 46 invited schools agreed to participate. Some schools declined to participate due to concerns about time commitments, and a number of schools decided not to participate because they were already committed to other research studies. However, once a school committed to involvement, recruitment of participants and their parents 3464 J Autism Dev Disord (2017) 47:3458–3478 1 3 was high. All eligible students at the participating schools (N = 30) agreed to participate but one participant met exclusion criteria, resulting in a final sample of 29 students with ASD (Age range 10–13 years, Mage = 11.8, SDage = 0.70, 90% males)."
Eligibility Criteria	"Participants included all children in year 6 or 7 who had been formally ascertained through the schooling system as having a diagnosis from a psychiatrist or paediatrician of Autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, or PDD-NOS as per the DSM-IV-TR (APA 2000)."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	29 students, 18 schools
Grade/School Level	6, 7 / Not reported
Age	11.8 (0.7)
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	RAP-A-ASD
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Mackay, B. A., Shochet, I. M., & Orr, J. A. (2017). A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial of a School-Based Resilience Intervention to Prevent Depressive Symptoms for Young Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Mixed Methods Analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(11), 3458–3478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3263-5

Study	Martinsen 2019
Title	Prevention of anxiety and depression in school children: Effectiveness of the transdiagnostic EMOTION program
Start Date	February 2014
End Date	June 2016
Recruitment Approach	"Schools (36 from seven sites in Norway) were randomized. Allocation of the schools to (a) EMOTION intervention (EC) or (b) control condition (CC) involved pairing schools based on geography, school size, and demography and then randomly assigning schools. The Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (2013/1909/ REK South-East) approved the study. Recruitment used multiple gating because symptomatic children were the target group for the intervention. Children and parents were informed about the study, and then children experiencing symptoms of anxiety and/or depression and with parental consent were screened. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are in Table 1. The parents of children scoring above the cutoff completed questionnaires. For demographics and flow of children in study, see Table 1 and Figure 1."
Eligibility Criteria	Table 1 on p. 213
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	721 students, 36 schools
Grade/School Level	3, 4, 5, 6 / Elementary School
Age	10.1 (0.9)
Percent Female	58%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	94% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Norway
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	EMOTION
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	NCT02340637
Data/Code Availability	"Subgroup analyses for gender and age group were performed; results can be obtained from the first author."
References	Martinsen, K. D., Rasmussen, L. M. P., Wentzel-Larsen, T., Holen, S., Sund, A. M., Løvaas, M. E. S., Patras, J., Kendall, P. C., Waaktaar, T., & Neumer, S.-P. (2019). Prevention of anxiety and depression in school children: Effectiveness of the transdiagnostic EMOTION program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87(2), 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000360

Study	McCarty 2011
Title	Feasibility of the Positive Thoughts and Actions Prevention Program for Middle Schoolers at Risk for Depression
Start Date	2005
End Date	2009
Recruitment Approach	A total of 67 7th grade students were recruited from 4 Seattle Public Middle schools after school wide screening for depression was conducted on a larger sample (n = 684) in Fall of 2005 and Fall of 2006. All students who scored 14 or above on the MFQ were individually evaluated for clinical needs using a brief clinical evaluation protocol. Their parent or guardian was called and provided with feedback about the child’s needs and referrals for resources, if indicated. Students and parents who met inclusion criteria and consented to participate were randomly assigned to the intervention group, Positive Thoughts and Actions (PTA) or the control group.
Eligibility Criteria	Students who scored higher than 14 (top 25%) on the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (described below) after screening were invited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria for students included (1) clinically elevated externalizing problems, (2) the presence of suicidal ideation, (3) probable diagnoses of Major Depressive Episode on the Patient Health Questionnaire—Adolescent Form, (4) plans to move to a nonparticipating school, and (5) parents who did not speak English. The first three exclusion categories were designed to ensure we were identifying youth who were appropriate for prevention and were not showing clinical levels of depression and related problem-behavior.
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	67 students, 4 schools
Grade/School Level	7 / Middle School
Age	13 (0.32)
Percent Female	50%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	3% AIAN, 7% Asian, 6% Black, 10% Latinx, 64% White, 19% Other
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Washington)
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Positive Thoughts and Actions (PTA)
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	McCarty, C. A., Violette, H. D., & McCauley, E. (2011). Feasibility of the Positive Thoughts and Actions Prevention Program for Middle Schoolers at Risk for Depression. Depression Research and Treatment, 2011, e241386. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/241386

Study	McCarty 2013
Title	A Randomized Trial of the Positive Thoughts and Action Program for Depression Among Early Adolescents
Start Date	2010
End Date	2011
Recruitment Approach	"Our goal was to identify a symptomatic sample of youth who did not yet have depressive disorders. Students who scored 14 or higher (top 25%) on the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ), administered as part of our screening questionnaire, were seen individually for a brief follow-up by study staff to assess their eligibility for the prevention trial."
Eligibility Criteria	"Exclusion criteria for students were as follows: (a) parents did not understand English, (b) current suicidal ideation, (c) currently enrolled in mental health treatment for depression or to cope with stressors, (d) symptoms consistent with probable major depressive disorder (MDD) based on responses to the Patient Health Questionnaire–9, or (e) during individual follow-up, student was perceived to be inappropriate for a group-based intervention due to clear intellectual disability or behavioral problems. Parents of students who had unmet clinical needs (suicidal ideation or probable MDD) were contacted by phone to provide feedback about their child’s needs and referral information."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	120 students, 4 schools
Grade/School Level	7, 8 / Middle School
Age	12.8
Percent Female	61%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	10% AIAN, 17% Asian, 7% Black, 9% Latinx, 3% NHPI, 56% White, 8% Other
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Washington)
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Positive Thoughts and Actions
Comparison Group	Active: Individual Support Program
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	NCT01220635
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	McCarty, C. A., Violette, H. D., Duong, M. T., Cruz, R. A., & McCauley, E. (2013). A Randomized Trial of the Positive Thoughts and Action Program for Depression Among Early Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42(4), 554–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.782817 Duong, M. T., Cruz, R. A., King, K. M., Violette, H. D., & McCarty, C. A. (2016). Twelve-month outcomes of a randomized trial of the positive thoughts and action program for depression among early adolescents. Prevention Science, 17(3), 295-305.

Study	McLaughlin 2010
Title	EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF AN EMPIRICALLY-SUPPORTED GROUP INTERVENTION FOR STUDENTS AT-RISK FOR DEPRESSION IN A RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Start Date	2008
End Date	2009
Recruitment Approach	"Participants were recruited from two buildings: one that housed the fourth and fifth grades and a middle school that housed sixth, seventh, and eighth grades " "The rural Pennsylvania school district hired the school psychologist to lead a school-based mental health initiative within the school district. The school psychologist along with the school district planned for a continuum of mental health service delivery that progressed from universal services to targeted services to intensive services. One component that the school district identified as an area of need was in delivering targeted services. Therefore, the school district planned to increase its service delivery to this population during the 2008 to 2009 school year. The district determined that the populations for targeted services were students in grades five, six, seven, and eight who were at-risk for depression because the school psychologist and principals identified a large population of need in that environment. Having school-based mental health experience and knowledge, the school psychologist suggested that during the 2008 to 2009 school year, the district try two groups he had familiarity with – the CWD-A and the Vernon curriculum. Conveniently, the school counselors also had familiarity with the Vernon curriculum. Therefore, at the end of the 2007 to 2008 school year, the district decided to proceed with the expansion of their school-based mental health initiative by offering two groups to students: the CWD-A group and the Vernon curriculum, also called the treatment as usual group. The district school psychologist and the school psychology intern facilitated the screening of students for depression and the implementation of group counseling. The author of this study was the school psychology intern."
Eligibility Criteria	"The rural Pennsylvania school district hired the school psychologist to lead a school-based mental health initiative within the school district. The school psychologist along with the school district planned for a continuum of mental health service delivery that progressed from universal services to targeted services to intensive services. One component that the school district identified as an area of need was in delivering targeted services. Therefore, the school district planned to increase its service delivery to this population during the 2008 to 2009 school year. The district determined that the populations for targeted services were students in grades five, six, seven, and eight who were at-risk for depression because the school psychologist and principals identified a large population of need in that environment. Having school-based mental health experience and knowledge, the school psychologist suggested that during the 2008 to 2009 school year, the district try two groups he had familiarity with – the CWD-A and the Vernon curriculum. Conveniently, the school counselors also had familiarity with the Vernon curriculum. Therefore, at the end of the 2007 to 2008 school year, the district decided to proceed with the expansion of their school-based mental health initiative by offering two groups to students: the CWD-A group and the Vernon curriculum, also called the treatment as usual group. The district school psychologist and the school psychology intern facilitated the screening of students for depression and the implementation of group counseling. The author of this study was the school psychology intern."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	22 students, 2 schools
Grade/School Level	5, 6, 7, 8 / Elementary School and Middle School
Age	11.82
Percent Female	41%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	46%
Country (State)	United States (Pennsylvania)
Geographic Area	Rural
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	CWD-A
Comparison Group	Active: Control
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	McLaughlin, C. L. (2010). EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF AN EMPIRICALLY-SUPPORTED GROUP INTERVENTION FOR STUDENTS AT-RISK FOR DEPRESSION IN A RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT [Kent State University]. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_olink/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=kent1276557200

Study	Merry 2004
Title	A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of a School-Based Depression Prevention Program
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Participants were recruited from two different years in two schools in Auckland, New Zealand. One of these schools, school A, was from a lower socioeconomic urban area; the other, school B, was from a middle-class rural district. The schools were selected on the basis of their ethnic mix, almost purely Maori and Pakeha, and the numbers on their rolls. Most other schools in Auckland have a substantial number of students of Pacific Island or Asian ethnicity. All students in year 10 at school A and year 9 at school B were invited to participate. These years were chosen in consultation with the schools so that the study could fit the school curriculum and so that 13- to 14-year-old students could be recruited."
Eligibility Criteria	Year in school "All students in year 10 at school A and year 9 at school B were invited to participate. These years were chosen in consultation with the schools so that the study could fit the school curriculum and so that 13- to 14-year-old students could be recruited."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	392 students, 2 schools
Grade/School Level	9, 10 / Not reported
Age	14.2 (0.65)
Percent Female	52%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	0% AIAN, 1% Asian, 0% Black, 0% Latinx, 8% NHPI, 0% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	New Zealand
Geographic Area	Urban, Rural
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	RAP-Kiwi
Comparison Group	Active: Placebo program
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	"Manuals from Dr. Merry on request"
References	Merry, S., McDOWELL, H., Wild, C. J., Bir, J., & Cunliffe, R. (2004). A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of a School-Based Depression Prevention Program. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(5), 538–547. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200405000-00007 Shochet IM, Ham D. Universal school-based approaches to preventing adolescent depression: Past findings and future directions of the Resourceful Adolescent Program. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion. 2004;6(3):17-25. Shochet IM, Hoge R. Resourceful adolescent program: A prevention and early intervention program for teenage depression. Treatments for adolescent depression: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press 2009:123-157.

Study	Miu 2015
Title	Preventing Symptoms of Depression by Teaching Adolescents That People Can Change: Effects of a Brief Incremental Theory of Personality Intervention at 9-Month Follow-Up
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"In Study 3, students entering ninth grade—regardless of math placement—were recruited," "Sample 1 was the first study we conducted. We recruited all of the students in Algebra 1 in the school, which is a lower-performing math class." "Sample 2 was a replication and involved all of the students in Algebra 1 at a different, lower-performing school;"
Eligibility Criteria	9th graders in a math class specified above per each school
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	599 students, 3 schools
Grade/School Level	9 / High School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (California)
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	intervention
Comparison Group	Active: Control
Outcomes	Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	"Detail on the Experimental Intervention section in the Supplemental Material."
References	Miu, A. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Preventing Symptoms of Depression by Teaching Adolescents That People Can Change: Effects of a Brief Incremental Theory of Personality Intervention at 9-Month Follow-Up. Clinical Psychological Science, 3(5), 726–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614548317

Study	O'Kearney 2006
Title	Effects of a Cognitive‐Behavioural Internet Program on Depression, Vulnerability to Depression and Stigma in Adolescent Males: A School‐Based Controlled Trial
Start Date	April 2004
End Date	November 2004
Recruitment Approach	"Students were informed verbally about the study and provided with written information. They were invited to take home information sheets and consent forms for both their signature and that of a parent/guardian. Students who returned both signed consent forms to the school were included. The total number of students in year 9 was 120. Seventy-eight boys agreed to participate and obtained written consent from their parents."
Eligibility Criteria	"Eligible participants were all year 9 students, aged 15 and 16 years at a Canberra, Australian Capital Territory secondary school."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	78 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	9 / Secondary School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	0%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	MoodGYM
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms, Subsyndromal depression
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	O’Kearney, R., Gibson, M., Christensen, H., & Griffiths, K. M. (2006). Effects of a Cognitive‐Behavioural Internet Program on Depression, Vulnerability to Depression and Stigma in Adolescent Males: A School‐Based Controlled Trial. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 35(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506070500303456

Study	O'Kearney 2009
Title	A controlled trial of a school-based Internet program for reducing depressive symptoms in adolescent girls
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"The total number of students in year 10 was 157 and all 157 girls agreed to participate and obtained written consent from their parents."
Eligibility Criteria	"Eligible participants were year 10 girls attending a single sex school in Canberra, Australia."
Research Design	Quasi-experimental design
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	157 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	10 / High School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	100%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	MoodGYM
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Serious
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	O’Kearney, R., Kang, K., Christensen, H., & Griffiths, K. (2009). A controlled trial of a school-based Internet program for reducing depressive symptoms in adolescent girls. Depression and Anxiety, 26(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20507

Study	Pattison 2001
Title	The Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in Children: The Immediate and Long-term Outcomes of a School-based Program
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"All Year 5 and Year 6 students (about 150) were informed about the study and, of the 95 students who expressed an interest, 74 students provided the parental consent necessary to participate."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	4
Sample Size	66 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	5, 6 / Not reported
Age	10.44 (0.69)
Percent Female	52%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Rural
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Normal Penn group; Reversed Penn Group
Comparison Group	Attention Control; No Treatment
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Pattison, C., & Lynd-Stevenson, R. M. (2001). The Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in Children: The Immediate and Long-term Outcomes of a School-based Program. Behaviour Change, 18(2), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1375/bech.18.2.92

Study	Perry 2017
Title	Preventing Depression in Final Year Secondary Students: School-Based Randomized Controlled Trial
Start Date	August 01, 2014
End Date	August 2016
Recruitment Approach	School principals will be notified about the trial in writing and invited to allow their schools to participate. Research personnel may also meet with principals and/or teachers in person to provide information about the study and answer any questions. Once principals formally agree to their schools’ participating in the trial, parents and students will be informed about the trial. All adolescents enrolled in their final year of secondary school in participating schools were invited to participate in the trial. All students at participating partially selective schools were eligible to participate in the trial; however, streaming status (ie, selective or comprehensive) was recorded and evaluated in analyses. Written, informed consent was sought from students and their parents prior to the start of the trial. Students who did not provide consent were able to access the assigned intervention; however, only those with consent completed the research questionnaires. A total of 23 secondary schools were approached between August 1 and November 28, 2014, to participate in the trial. Of 14 schools who initially agreed to participate, 4 dropped out prior to randomization leaving 10 schools contributing 7 to 126 participants each. A total of 540 students provided personal consent and obtained parental consent to participate.
Eligibility Criteria	All adolescents enrolled in their final year of high school in participating schools will be invited to participate. Due to the universal nature of the study, there were no exclusion criteria.
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	54
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	540 students, 10 schools
Grade/School Level	12 / Secondary School
Age	16.7 (0.51)
Percent Female	63%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	57%
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	SPARX-R
Comparison Group	Attention Control
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms, Educational achievement, Suicidal ideation
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	ACTRN12614000316606
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Perry, Y., Werner-Seidler, A., Calear, A., Mackinnon, A., King, C., Scott, J., Merry, S., Fleming, T., Stasiak, K., Christensen, H., & Batterham, P. J. (2017). Preventing Depression in Final Year Secondary Students: School-Based Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(11), e8241. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8241

Study	Petersen 1997
Title	Promoting mental health during the transition into adolescence
Start Date	1989
End Date	1993
Recruitment Approach	Approximately half of the students in the study sample in both school districts in 2 successive years were randomly assigned to the intervention or control groups. To ensure that there were enough participants with a high risk of depressive symptoms, we oversampled on risk status, which was established in two successive assessments in sixth and seventh grades. Adolescents were thought to be at high risk if they reported depressive mood (i.e., in the lower third of the distribution in the fall of both sixth and seventh grades, based on prior research evidence in another longitudinal study) (Ebata, 1987).
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	335 students, 3 schools
Grade/School Level	7 / Middle School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Pennsylvania)
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Psychoeducational Intervention Program
Comparison Group	NR
Outcomes	Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms, Well-being
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Petersen, A. C., Leffert, N., Graham, B., Alwin, J., & et al. (1997). Promoting mental health during the transition into adolescence. In Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 471–497). Cambridge University Press.

Study	Pophillat 2016
Title	Preventing Internalizing Problems in 6–8 Year Old Children: A Universal School-Based Program
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	All Year 1-3 classes from a low SES primary school were targeted, providing a sample of 217 students and their parents. Active consent was sought from all parents, followed by a passive consent. A 2-stage consent process was employed, whereby active consent was sought from all parents of Years 1–3 children, followed by a passive consent procedure. Ninety-five percent of parents actively or passively consented to their child's participation. Informed consent was obtained from both next of kin and the children in written form. The child consent form contains information that the child can understand and has their signature of consent on it and the case is the same for the parents. Students were provided with brief information about the project, and verbal assent to participate was sought. The parents of 11 children actively refused, leaving 206 students and their parents.
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	20.6
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	206 students, 10 classrooms, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	1, 2, 3 / Primary School
Age	NA (6 to 8)
Percent Female	52%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Aussie Optimism Program: Feelings and Friends (AOP-FF)
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Pophillat, E., Rooney, R. M., Nesa, M., Davis, M. C., Baughman, N., Hassan, S., & Kane, R. T. (2016). Preventing Internalizing Problems in 6–8 Year Old Children: A Universal School-Based Program. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01928

Study	Poppelaars 2016
Title	A randomized controlled trial comparing two cognitive-behavioral programs for adolescent girls with subclinical depression: A school-based program (Op Volle Kracht) and a computerized program (SPARX)
Start Date	November 2012
End Date	2013
Recruitment Approach	"The sample size was similar to the sample size used in the OVK study by Wijnhoven et al. (2014). Post-hoc power analyses using G*Power 3.1.7 (Buchner, Erdfelder, Faul, & Lang, 2013) showed that a power of 0.97 was achieved for small effect sizes (partial h2 ¼ 0.01; correlation among repeated measures ¼ 0.67; ε ¼ 0.53; number of measurements ¼ 13) when including the 159 participants who completed all assessments. Seven secondary schools in selected cities and towns in The Netherlands agreed to participate in the study. Adolescent girls in the first two years of these schools (grade 7 and 8) and their parents received information regarding the study and could withdraw from the study before screening. Additionally, participants and parents gave active written consent for study participation past the initial screening. In total, 962 girls were screened (T0) during November and December 2012, at school during class-time, using the Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale (RADS-2; Reynolds, 2002). To be eligible for further participation in the study, girls had to score at or above the 70th percentile on depressive symptoms within the sample (RADS-2 score  59, n ¼ 297). Exclusion criteria were suicidal ideation (score 2 on Children’s Depression Inventory item 9, n ¼ 2) and currently receiving mental health care (n ¼ 26). Girls indicating suicidal ideation at screening, or any time point within the study, were contacted along with their parents and were provided information on possible mental health care services they could access. Girls were informed of this procedure at the start of the study. Suicidal ideation (n ¼ 6) during intervention or at followup was not an exclusion criteria. The 269 girls meeting inclusion criteria were contacted to participate in the study, of which 46 declined to participate and fifteen could not be contacted (see Fig. 1). In the end, 208 girls were enrolled in the study."
Eligibility Criteria	"To be eligible for further participation in the study, girls had to score at or above the 70th percentile on depressive symptoms within the sample (RADS-2 score  59, n ¼ 297). Exclusion criteria were suicidal ideation (score 2 on Children’s Depression Inventory item 9, n ¼ 2) and currently receiving mental health care (n ¼ 26). Girls indicating suicidal ideation at screening, or any time point within the study, were contacted along with their parents and were provided information on possible mental health care services they could access. Girls were informed of this procedure at the start of the study. Suicidal ideation (n ¼ 6) during intervention or at followup was not an exclusion criteria."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	4
Sample Size	208 students
Grade/School Level	Not reported / Secondary School
Age	13.35 (0.71)
Percent Female	100%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Netherlands
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	OVK; SPARX; OVK & SPARX
Comparison Group	Waitlist
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	NTR3737
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Poppelaars, M., Tak, Y. R., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Engels, R. C. M. E., Lobel, A., Merry, S. N., Lucassen, M. F. G., & Granic, I. (2016). A randomized controlled trial comparing two cognitive-behavioral programs for adolescent girls with subclinical depression: A school-based program (Op Volle Kracht) and a computerized program (SPARX). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 80, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2016.03.005

Study	Pössel 2004
Title	School-Based Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in Adolescents: A 6-Month Follow-up
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Next, consent forms were sent to the parents of the eighth grade students at the six participating schools. Parents were informed that, within each school, classes were to be randomly assigned to the training or control group. We tried to recruit both training and control groups in each school; however, there was one school with only one class, which we assigned to the training group. In another school with three classes, we randomly assigned two classes to the training group."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	347 students, 12 classrooms, 6 schools
Grade/School Level	8 / Middle School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Germany
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	LISA-T
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Pössel, P., Horn, A. B., Groen, G., & Hautzinger, M. (2004). School-Based Prevention of Depressive Symptoms in Adolescents: A 6-Month Follow-up. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(8), 1003–1010. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000126975.56955.98 Pössel, P., Baldus, C., Horn, A.B., Groen, G. and Hautzinger, M. (2005), Influence of general self-efficacy on the effects of a school-based universal primary prevention program of depressive symptoms in adolescents: a randomized and controlled follow-up study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46: 982-994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00395.x

Study	Possel 2008
Title	Impact of comorbidity in prevention of adolescent depressive symptoms
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	Letters were sent to the principals of six middle schools in the area of Tuebingen (southwest Germany) asking for their school’s participation in this project. The principals of two schools refused participation, expressing concerns for the potential loss of lessons for their normal school curriculum. A written description of the study was sent to the parents of the eighth graders at the four participating schools. Additionally, we described the study in detail to the adolescents and their parents in a parent–teacher conference. In these conferences the adolescents, parents, and their class teachers discussed the participation of the class and decided together if the class as a whole should participate in the study. As result of this procedure, all classes invited to participate in the study decided to give consent. Furthermore, all parents and adolescents not participating in the parent–teacher conferences gave their consent. Adolescents, parents, and teachers of the intervention and control groups were informed about the program’s objectives to strengthen the skills of the adolescents and to facilitate their coping with strains. It was explained that having a control group is essential in order to study the program’s effects.
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	25.1
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	301 students, 12 classrooms, 4 schools
Grade/School Level	8 / Middle School
Age	13.7 (0.61)
Percent Female	47%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Germany
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	LARS&LISA
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Pössel, P., Seemann, S., & Hautzinger, M. (2008). Impact of comorbidity in prevention of adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.1.106 Pössel, P., Adelson, J. L., & Hautzinger, M. (2011). A randomized trial to evaluate the course of effects of a program to prevent adolescent depressive symptoms over 12 months. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49(12), 838–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2011.09.010

Study	Possel 2013
Title	A randomized controlled trial of a cognitive-behavioral program for the prevention of depression in adolescents compared with nonspecific and no-intervention control conditions
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Letters describing the study were sent to parents of students in all Wellness classes each semester. Students who received parental consent were invited to participate and asked for their assent. Both interventions were described to students, teachers, and parents as probably efficacious."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	518 students, 63 classrooms, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	9 / High School
Age	15.09 (0.76)
Percent Female	62.7%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	14.7% Black, 5.4% Latinx, 0.8% NHPI, 72.8% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	29%
Country (State)	United States (Not reported)
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	LARS&LISA
Comparison Group	Attention Control; No Treatment
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Pössel, P., Martin, N. C., Garber, J., & Hautzinger, M. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of a cognitive-behavioral program for the prevention of depression in adolescents compared with nonspecific and no-intervention control conditions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032308

Study	Puskar 2003
Title	Effect of the Teaching Kids to Cope (TKC©) Program on Outcomes of Depression and Coping Among Rural Adolescents
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Following Internal Review Board approval and informed consents from adolescents and their parents, students were screened for eligibility/exclusion criteria using a battery of 11 instruments. Students meeting these selection criteria were approached for participation in the intervention study. Once consents from parents and adolescents we= obtained, subjects were randomized to either control or intervention with equal allocation using permuted block randomization within school sites. Subjects in the intervention were placed into groups based on school, and entry into the study was based on the date of randomization."
Eligibility Criteria	"To be eligible for participation in the intervention study students had to (a) be at least 13 years of age, (b) live in a rural area with a population density of 2,500 to 7,000, (c) score in the mid-range (at least 60) on the RADS, and (d) have no history of a death of a family member or friend during the past year."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	89 students, 4 schools
Grade/School Level	Not reported / High School
Age	16 (14.1183)
Percent Female	82%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	98.9% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Pennsylvania)
Geographic Area	Rural
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Teaching Kids to Cope
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Puskar, K., Sereika, S., & Tusaie-Mumford, K. (2003). Effect of the Teaching Kids to Cope (TKC©) Program on Outcomes of Depression and Coping Among Rural Adolescents. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 16(2), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2003.tb00350.x

Study	Quayle 2001
Title	The Effect of an Optimism and Lifeskills Program on Depressive Symptoms in Preadolescence
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Informed consent to participate was obtained from 47 of the girls and their parents, a response rate of 67%."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	47 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	7 / Primary School
Age	NA (11.12)
Percent Female	100%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Suburban
School Type	Private
Active Intervention	The Optimism and Lifeskills Program
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Quayle, D., Dziurawiec, S., Roberts, C., Kane, R., & Ebsworthy, G. (2001). The Effect of an Optimism and Lifeskills Program on Depressive Symptoms in Preadolescence. Behaviour Change, 18(4), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1375/bech.18.4.194

Study	Raes 2014
Title	School-Based Prevention and Reduction of Depression in Adolescents: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Mindfulness Group Program
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Fifty schools were invited to participate. The schools were located in Flanders—the northern, Dutch-speaking region of Belgium. Fifteen schools expressed interest in participating, but ten were unable to participate due to practical difficulties that mainly had to do with course timetable incompatibilities." "All students gave written assent or informed consent if they were already legal adults. For those below age 16, passive parental informed consent was also obtained using a letter in which parents were asked to complete and return an attached form if they did not want their child to participate."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	401 students, 24 classrooms, 5 schools
Grade/School Level	9, 10, 11, 12 / High School
Age	15.4 (1.2)
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Belgium
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Mindfulness condition
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Raes, F., Griffith, J. W., Van der Gucht, K., & Williams, J. M. G. (2014). School-Based Prevention and Reduction of Depression in Adolescents: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Mindfulness Group Program. Mindfulness, 5(5), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0202-1 der Gucht, K. V., Takano, K., Kuppens, P., & Raes, F. (2017). Potential moderators of the effects of a school-based mindfulness program on symptoms of depression in adolescents. Mindfulness, 8(3), 797-806.

Study	Rivet-Duval 2011
Title	Preventing Adolescent Depression in Mauritius: A Universal School-Based Program
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"All students in Years 7 and 9 at two single-sex schools were invited to participate. No students were identified as having intellectual disability or major psychiatric disorder based upon parent and teacher report."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	160 students, 2 schools
Grade/School Level	7, 9 / Secondary School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Mauritius
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Resourceful Adolescent Program
Comparison Group	Waitlist
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Rivet-Duval, E., Heriot, S., & Hunt, C. (2011). Preventing Adolescent Depression in Mauritius: A Universal School-Based Program. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 16(2), 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2010.00584.x

Study	Roberts 2003
Title	The prevention of depressive symptoms in rural school children: A randomized controlled trial
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"The principals of 18 schools, selected as being representative of rural Western Australian primary schools, were invited to participate. Parents of all 7th-grade students were sent information and consent forms for the screening phase. The CDI was then read aloud to students in class groups by trained research assistants who were blind to condition. Children selected for the intervention phase were invited to participate in letters sent to their parents. Parents were informed of their child’s school group status and that they would be contacted by the researchers and provided with advice, if their child’s scores indicated significant levels of distress."
Eligibility Criteria	"For the intervention phase, participating children in each class were rank ordered using their CDI scores, and 13 children with the highest scores from each class were invited to participate."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	194 students, 0 classrooms, 18 schools
Grade/School Level	7 / Primary School
Age	11.89 (0.33)
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Rural
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Penn Prevention Program
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Roberts, C. (2003). The prevention of depressive symptoms in rural school children: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(3), 622. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.3.622 Roberts, C., Kane, R., Bishop, B., Matthews, H., & Thomson, H. (2004). The prevention of depressive symptoms in rural school children: A follow-up study. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 6(3), 4-16.

Study	Roberts 2010
Title	The prevention of anxiety and depression in children from disadvantaged schools
Start Date	2000
End Date	2003
Recruitment Approach	Principals were invited by letter and a phone call to participate in the study. A presentation was then made to the principal and Grade 7 teachers in Term 1. All 12 schools consented and were then advised on their condition. Active consent was requested from Grade 7 students and their parents. Information letters were forwarded to parents on school letterhead, and parent information sessions were conducted at each school. Parents agreed to participate by returning an active consent form. Where consent forms were not returned by a due date, parents were asked to return a non-consent form if they did not want to participate, otherwise the child was included in the study.
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	496 students, 12 schools
Grade/School Level	7 / Primary School
Age	11.99 (0.33)
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Aussie Optimism Program
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	"Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.brat.2009.09.002."
References	Roberts, C. M., Kane, R., Bishop, B., Cross, D., Fenton, J., & Hart, B. (2010). The prevention of anxiety and depression in children from disadvantaged schools. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48(1), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2009.09.002

Study	Roberts 2018
Title	Efficacy of the Aussie Optimism Program: Promoting Pro-social Behavior and Preventing Suicidality in Primary School Students. A Randomised-Controlled Trial
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Principals from 91 government primary schools in the Western Australian towns of Fremantle, Rockingham, and Mandurah were invited by letter and a phone call to participate in the study. A presentation was then made to the principals and the Grade 6 and 7 teachers, following which the Grade 6 and 7 teachers were provided with information and consent forms. Teachers and principals from 63 schools agreed to participate in the study."
Eligibility Criteria	"The Grade 6 students from the consenting schools took home information and active consent forms for their parents, with reminders approximately 2 weeks later."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	2,288 students, 63 schools
Grade/School Level	6 / Primary School
Age	11.05 (0.33)
Percent Female	48.9%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Aussie Optimism + Coaching; Aussie Optimism
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression diagnosis
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Roberts, C. M., Kane, R. T., Rooney, R. M., Pintabona, Y., Baughman, N., Hassan, S., Cross, D., Zubrick, S. R., & Silburn, S. R. (2018). Efficacy of the Aussie Optimism Program: Promoting Pro-social Behavior and Preventing Suicidality in Primary School Students. A Randomised-Controlled Trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01392

Study	Rooney 2006
Title	The Prevention of Depression in 8- to 9-Year-Old Children: A Pilot Study
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"School principals were invited to participate in the intervention or control conditions after the randomisation had been completed. A school visit and presentation to the principals and teachers were made to explain the research study and the program rationale and content. Parents were initially informed of the research by school newsletters and through parent teacher meetings. They then received detailed information forms asking them to provide active consent for their children to participate in the study. Parents who consented were asked to return a completed consent form to their school for collection by the primary researcher."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	136 students, 4 schools
Grade/School Level	Not reported / Primary School
Age	9.08
Percent Female	43%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Positive Thinking Program
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Rooney, R., Roberts, C., Kane, R., Pike, L., Winsor, A., White, J., & Brown, A. (2006). The Prevention of Depression in 8- to 9-Year-Old Children: A Pilot Study. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 16(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.16.1.76

Study	Rose 2014
Title	Randomized controlled trial of a friendship skills intervention on adolescent depressive symptoms
Start Date	2008
End Date	2009
Recruitment Approach	"Schools were identified from websites listing all independent and Catholic schools in the local metropolitan area, and all 88 schools were invited to participate in the study. Four schools agree to participate and were provided with information packages to mail to the parents of eligible students containing parent and student information statements, consent forms, and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997). Both parental and student consent were required for participation, with a 57.0% response rate across the four schools, resulting in the final sample of 210 students. Student data collection and intervention implementation were conducted on location at participating schools. Schools mailed questionnaire packages provided by researchers to parents; however, on average, only half of the parents returned"
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	210 students, 14 classrooms, 4 schools
Grade/School Level	6, 7 / Secondary School
Age	12.22 (0.77)
Percent Female	44%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	17.1% Asian, 64.8% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Private
Active Intervention	RAP-PIR
Comparison Group	Active: RAP-Placebo program; Waitlist
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Rose, K. (2014). Randomized controlled trial of a friendship skills intervention on adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(3), 510. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035827

Study	Sawyer 2010
Title	School-based prevention of depression: a randomised controlled study of the beyondblue schools research initiative
Start Date	2003
End Date	2005
Recruitment Approach	"Participating students were enrolled in Year 8 in 50 secondary schools (25 ‘intervention schools’ and 25 ‘comparison schools’) and completed a baseline assessment in Term 2 (May through June) 2003, prior to the commencement of the intervention (Figure 1). At the baseline assessment, participants (n = 5,634) had an average age of 13.1 (SD = .5) years and 47% were male. Eighty-one percent of participants had at least one parent in full-time employment, while 70% of participants’ parents lived together, consistent with national Australian population estimates (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2003)."
Eligibility Criteria	"Participating schools were located in three Australian States: Queensland (N = 18), South Australia (N = 16) and Victoria (N = 16). To be eligible, schools were required to have an enrolment of at least 100 students in Year 8. Eligible schools were recruited through an ‘expression of interest’ process."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	5,634 students, 50 schools
Grade/School Level	8, 9, 10 / High School
Age	13.03 (0.53)
Percent Female	56%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	22%
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public Private
Active Intervention	beyondblue
Comparison Group	Attention Control
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	"Clinical Trials Registry: This study was initiated prior to the establishment of the registry."
References	Sawyer, M. G., Pfeiffer, S., Spence, S. H., Bond, L., Graetz, B., Kay, D., Patton, G., & Sheffield, J. (2010). School-based prevention of depression: A randomised controlled study of the beyondblue schools research initiative. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02136.x Sawyer, M. G., Harchak, T. F., Spence, S. H., Bond, L., Graetz, B., Kay, D., ... & Sheffield, J. (2010). School-based prevention of depression: A 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of the beyondblue schools research initiative. Journal of Adolescent Health, 47(3), 297-304. Firth N, Butler H, Drew S, et al. Implementing multi-level programmes and approaches that address student well-being and connectedness: Factoring in the needs of the schools. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion. 2008;1(4):14-24. Spence, S. H., Sawyer, M. G., Sheffield, J., Patton, G., Bond, L., Graetz, B., & Kay, D. (2014). Does the Absence of a Supportive Family Environment Influence the Outcome of a Universal Intervention for the Prevention of Depression? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph110505113

Study	Sheffield 2006
Title	Evaluation of universal, indicated, and combined cognitive-behavioral approaches to the prevention of depression among adolescents
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Initially, 36 schools agreed to participate from two Australian states: Queensland and New South Wales (NSW)." "Written, informed consent was obtained from parents and students. An exact participation rate is difficult to establish, as distribution of consent forms was undertaken by teachers, and it is not known how many students and parents actually received the invitation to take part. However, as a conservative estimate it is known that at least 50% of total Year 9 enrollments across participating schools provided informed consent. Informed consent was not required for participation in the universal intervention as this was undertaken as part of the regular school curriculum, although evaluation of this condition was limited to those who had provided consent."
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	4
Sample Size	2,479 students, 36 schools
Grade/School Level	9 / Not reported
Age	14.34 (0.45)
Percent Female	54%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Rural, Urban
School Type	Private Public
Active Intervention	Universal intervention; Indicated intervention; Universal plus indicated intervention
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Sheffield, J. K., Spence, S. H., Rapee, R. M., Kowalenko, N., Wignall, A., Davis, A., & McLoone, J. (2006). Evaluation of universal, indicated, and combined cognitive-behavioral approaches to the prevention of depression among adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.1.66\

Study	Shochet 2001
Title	The Efficacy of a Universal School-Based Program to Prevent Adolescent Depression
Start Date	1996
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	Not reported
Eligibility Criteria	"written parental consent was obtained"
Research Design	Quasi-experimental design
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Not reported
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	260 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	9 / Secondary School
Age	13.49 (0.54)
Percent Female	53.5%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	RAP–A; RAP-F
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Serious
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	"The RAP program is a fully manualized group treatment available from the first author."
References	Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Holland, D., Whitefield, K., Harnett, P. H., & Osgarby, S. M. (2001). The Efficacy of a Universal School-Based Program to Prevent Adolescent Depression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 30(3), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_3

Study	Shochet 2009
Title	Resourceful adolescent program: A prevention and early intervention program for teenage depression
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	Not reported
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	2,664 students, 12 schools
Grade/School Level	7 / Not reported
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	RAP-A; RAP-F
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Shochet IM, Hoge R. Resourceful adolescent program: A prevention and early intervention program for teenage depression. Treatments for adolescent depression: Theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press 2009:123-157. Shochet IM, Ham D. Universal school-based approaches to preventing adolescent depression: Past findings and future directions of the Resourceful Adolescent Program. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion. 2004;6(3):17-25.

Study	Sinclair 2016
Title	The Effects of a School-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Curriculum on Mental Health and Academic Outcomes for Adolescents with Disabilities
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Once teachers agreed to participate, the curriculum developer and recruited teachers discussed the study, in each classroom to recruit student participants. Depending on school district requirements, passive or active informed consent was used for approval to collect data on student participants. A recruitment flyer along with the consent form was given to each student to take home. For passive consent, caregivers of student participants were given a week to opt their student out of the study. After caregiver consent was established, students were asked to participate in the study and sign a consent form (if 18 years or older) or assent form (if under the age of 18). Students were told they would receive a $10.00 gift card to a local store (e.g., Target, Walmart, Dollar Tree, Amazon) for completing both pre- and posttest measures."
Eligibility Criteria	""Two criteria were used to select student participants: (a) students must receive special education services including students currently on an Individualized Education Plan or on a 504 plan, and (b) students must be transition age (ages 14-21). Because students with disabilities are identified as vulnerable to mental health problems they are considered a selected prevention population. No mental health diagnostic screening criteria were used as inclusion or exclusion criteria. In addition, data were not used on students whose disability impacted their ability to comprehend the curriculum and measures (this was determined by the student’s teacher)." "Teachers that were recruited for the study were allowed to participate in the study if they were the instructor of a self-contained classroom for transition age students with disabilities. A total of 11 teachers and agreed to participate in the study."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	115 students, 11 classrooms
Grade/School Level	Not reported / Not reported
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Oregon)
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Think, Be, Do
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Sinclair, J. (2016). The Effects of a School-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Curriculum on Mental Health and Academic Outcomes for Adolescents with Disabilities. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/20479

Study	Singhal 2014
Title	Development of a school-based program for adolescents at-risk for depression in India: Results from a pilot study
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	Grade 8, 9, and 11 students (13–18 years) of English-medium co-educational schools of Bangalore city were proposed to be the sample for the larger study. For the current pilot, for objective 1, a total of 300 students across three schools were screened using CDI and CES-DC and a socio-demographic data sheet which contained items on inclusion and exclusion criteria as well. The three schools were selected randomly from a pool of schools that gave permission to carry out the study. For the current study, students of Grade 9 who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria constituted the intervention (n = 13) and the control (n = 6) groups. Informed consent was obtained from principals and parents and assent from students prior to recruitment. For the intervention condition, one section (n = 40) of Grade 9 of a school was screened. 15 girls met inclusion criteria, of which 2 had to be excluded on account of absence due to girls’ scout camp. For the control condition, one section (n = 36) of Grade 9 of another branch of the intervention school was screened. 7 met inclusion criteria; 1 student declined to participate without giving any reason. 6 girls were selected in the final sample, all of whom attended the psycho-educatory session
Eligibility Criteria	‘At-risk for depression’ was operationalized as having elevated but subclinical symptoms of depression, defined by cut-off scores on Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) and Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale for Children (CES-DC).
Research Design	Quasi-experimental design
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	9.5
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	19 students, 2 classrooms, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	9 / Secondary School
Age	14.4
Percent Female	100%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	India
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Coping Skills Program
Comparison Group	Active: Psycho-Educatory Interactive Session
Outcomes	Depression symptoms, Stress
Risk of Bias	Serious
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Singhal, M., Manjula, M., & Vijay Sagar, K. J. (2014). Development of a school-based program for adolescents at-risk for depression in India: Results from a pilot study. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 10, 56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2014.03.011

Study	Soffer 2003
Title	School -based social skills training to reduce children's depressive symptomatology
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Permission to participate in this study was sought from the parents of all fifth grade students in general education classes. Of the 96 students whose parents were sent consent forms, 72 agreed to participate (75%) and 24 refused participation. Agreement of the child to participate was also obtained by having the child sign an assent form at the initiation of the study."
Eligibility Criteria	"The participants in this study were fifth grade students attending a public elementary school in an ethnically diverse, lower-middle class, urban neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	72 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	5 / Elementary School
Age	10.53 (0.55600000000000005)
Percent Female	47.2%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	8% Asian, 14% Black, 8% Latinx, 59.7% White, 4% Mixed, 6% Other
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (New York)
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public
Active Intervention	Social skills training; Peer interaction
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Soffer, A. G. (2003). School -based social skills training to reduce children’s depressive symptomatology [Ph.D., City University of New York]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/305330756/abstract/8C9AC0A037624728PQ/1

Study	Spence 2003
Title	Preventing adolescent depression: An evaluation of the Problem Solving For Life program
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"All children in each intervention classroom received the PSFL curriculum as part of their regular education. However, only students with written informed consent completed the questionnaire and interviews for program evaluation. Informed consent forms were given out to teachers of all participating classes. Written, informed consent forms were returned by 66% of enrollments in participating classrooms."
Eligibility Criteria	"In addition, student participation in the evaluation component of the study required the ability to read, write, and speak English proficiently, as judged by the class teacher."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	1,500 students, 16 schools
Grade/School Level	8 / High School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Public Private
Active Intervention	Problem Solving For Life
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Spence, S. H. (2003). Preventing adolescent depression: An evaluation of the Problem Solving For Life program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.3 Spence, S. H., Sheffield, J. K., & Donovan, C. L. (2005). Long-term outcome of a school-based, universal approach to prevention of depression in adolescents. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 73(1), 160.

Study	Stallard 2013a
Title	A cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of classroom-based cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in high-risk adolescents
Start Date	September 2008
End Date	June 2009
Recruitment Approach	"Information about the project was sent to 66 non-denominational comprehensive secondary schools in Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, Wiltshire, Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire County. Schools that expressed an interest were contacted by the research team and a face-to-face meeting was arranged to discuss the project. Nine schools were recruited: one for the pilot study and eight for the main trial. In the participating schools, three year groups could not be included as they did not have discrete PSHE lessons. Therefore, 28 year groups were included in the randomisation process for the main trial. Details of participant flow are provided in Figure 1 (pilot study) and Figure 2 (main trial)."
Eligibility Criteria	"3.5.1. Inclusion: Interventions will be provided during the school day as part of the school PSHE curriculum. All eligible children, i.e. years 8–11 (12–16 years old) will be expected to participate. There will be some occasions when young people do not participate in PSHE for religious reasons or due to absence but it is expected that these will be limited. Attendance at each session during the study will be monitored. 3.5.2. Exclusion: Young people who do not attend PSHE lessons will be the only exclusion in this study (e.g. if they are on technical training courses off site, on long term sickness absence, homeschooled). Children, identified during the study with possible clinical depression, and their carers will be contacted and advised to seek further help. They will continue to participate in the programmes running in the schools."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	711 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	8, 10 / Secondary School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United Kingdom
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	RAP-UK
Comparison Group	Attention Control; TAU
Outcomes	Depression diagnosis
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19083628
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Stallard, P., Phillips, R., Montgomery, A. A., Spears, M., Anderson, R., Taylor, J., Araya, R., Lewis, G., Ukoumunne, O. C., Millings, A., Georgiou, L., Cook, E., & Sayal, K. (2013). A cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of classroom-based cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in high-risk adolescents. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 17(47), vii–109. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17470 Stallard, P., Sayal, K., Phillips, R., Taylor, J. A., Spears, M., Anderson, R., ... & Montgomery, A. A. (2012). Classroom based cognitive behavioural therapy in reducing symptoms of depression in high risk adolescents: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Bmj, 345.

Study	Stallard 2013b
Title	A cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of classroom-based cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in high-risk adolescents
Start Date	July 2009
End Date	January 2011
Recruitment Approach	"Information about the project was sent to 66 non-denominational comprehensive secondary schools in Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, Wiltshire, Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire County. Schools that expressed an interest were contacted by the research team and a face-to-face meeting was arranged to discuss the project. Nine schools were recruited: one for the pilot study and eight for the main trial. In the participating schools, three year groups could not be included as they did not have discrete PSHE lessons. Therefore, 28 year groups were included in the randomisation process for the main trial. Details of participant flow are provided in Figure 1 (pilot study) and Figure 2 (main trial)."
Eligibility Criteria	"3.5.1. Inclusion: Interventions will be provided during the school day as part of the school PSHE curriculum. All eligible children, i.e. years 8–11 (12–16 years old) will be expected to participate. There will be some occasions when young people do not participate in PSHE for religious reasons or due to absence but it is expected that these will be limited. Attendance at each session during the study will be monitored. 3.5.2. Exclusion: Young people who do not attend PSHE lessons will be the only exclusion in this study (e.g. if they are on technical training courses off site, on long term sickness absence, homeschooled). Children, identified during the study with possible clinical depression, and their carers will be contacted and advised to seek further help. They will continue to participate in the programmes running in the schools."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	5,030 students, 8 schools
Grade/School Level	8, 9, 10, 11 / Secondary School
Age	NA (12.16)
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	85.5% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	11.2%
Country (State)	United Kingdom
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	RAP-UK
Comparison Group	Attention Control; TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression diagnosis, Depression symptoms, Self-harm, Substance use
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19083628
Data/Code Availability	protocol is appended to the report
References	Stallard, P., Phillips, R., Montgomery, A. A., Spears, M., Anderson, R., Taylor, J., Araya, R., Lewis, G., Ukoumunne, O. C., Millings, A., Georgiou, L., Cook, E., & Sayal, K. (2013). A cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of classroom-based cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in high-risk adolescents. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 17(47), vii–109. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17470 Stallard, P., Sayal, K., Phillips, R., Taylor, J. A., Spears, M., Anderson, R., ... & Montgomery, A. A. (2012). Classroom based cognitive behavioural therapy in reducing symptoms of depression in high risk adolescents: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Bmj, 345.

Study	Stoppelbein 2003
Title	Primary prevention: An evaluation of a high school-based cognitive-behavioral program
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"After receiving administrative approval from the high school, parents were informed of the research project through a passive consent form that was sent at the beginning of the semester. The form explained the purpose of the project, the procedures, risks, and benefits. The students were informed of the same information in an assent form that was administered in their health class before initiating the program. Both the parents and students were informed that their decision to participate or to decline to participate in no way affected the student’s course curriculum or grade in the class. After obtaining parental consent and the students’ assent, the students were invited to complete a packet of the self-report standardized measures that assessed their cognitive style (the CTI-C, CASQ, and DAS) and emotional adjustment (GDI)."
Eligibility Criteria	"Although all of the students who gave their consent were allowed to participate, only those students who were not undergoing psychotherapy treatment, who did not have a current psychiatric diagnosis, and who had obtained T-scores between 50 and 70 on the CDI were included in the initial analyses."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	59 students, 1 schools
Grade/School Level	10 / High School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	59%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	2% Asian, 88% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (Not reported)
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Coping with Depression
Comparison Group	Active: Control group
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Stoppelbein, L. A. (2004). Primary prevention: An evaluation of a high school-based cognitive-behavioral program [Ph.D., The University of Alabama]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/305335181/abstract/F7026E4CFAC14095PQ/1

Study	Tak 2016
Title	Universal School-Based Depression Prevention ‘Op Volle Kracht’: a Longitudinal Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Start Date	January 2011
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"As the intervention was incorporated into the school curriculum and administered during school hours, school principals had to give active consent for their school’s participation. Parents and adolescents were informed about the research by mail. In schools allocated to the intervention condition, a presentation was delivered to inform parents and teachers about the OVK program and study aims."
Eligibility Criteria	"All adolescents in the eighth grade from participating schools were eligible to participate. Adolescents were included through passive consent, but were free to withdraw from the study and participation in the OVK lessons at any point if their parents or they themselves wanted to discontinue participation."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	1,390 students, 9 schools
Grade/School Level	8 / Secondary School
Age	13.91 (0.55000000000000004)
Percent Female	47.3%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Netherlands
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Op Volle Kracht
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms, Educational achievement, Substance use
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Dutch Trial Registration (NTR2879)
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Tak, Y. R., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Gillham, J. E., Van Zundert, R. M. P., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2016). Universal School-Based Depression Prevention ‘Op Volle Kracht’: A Longitudinal Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(5), 949–961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0080-1 Tak YR, Van Zundert RM, Kuijpers RC, Van Vlokhoven BS, Rensink HF, Engels RC. A randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of a universal school-based depression prevention program 'Op Volle Kracht' in the Netherlands. BMC public health. 2012;12:21. Tak YR, Kleinjan M, Lichtwarck-Aschoff A, Engels RC. Secondary outcomes of a school-based universal resiliency training for adolescents: a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1171.

Study	Van der Gucht 2017
Title	Potential Moderators of the Effects of a School-Based Mindfulness Program on Symptoms of Depression in Adolescents
Start Date	2011
End Date	2012
Recruitment Approach	Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	Classroom
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	197 students, 5 schools
Grade/School Level	Not reported / Secondary School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Belgium
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Mindfulness
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Van der Gucht, K., Takano, K., Kuppens, P., Raes, F., 2017. Potential modera- tors of the effects of a school-based mindfulness program on symptoms of depression in adolescents. Mindfulness 8, 797–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12671- 016- 0658- x .

Study	Wong 2012
Title	Effectiveness of a universal school-based programme for preventing depression in Chinese adolescents: A quasi-experimental pilot study
Start Date	2006
End Date	2008
Recruitment Approach	"Letters were sent to potential schools with the help of the Hong Kong Education Bureau inviting interested school personnel to attend a 3-hour briefing session conducted by the research team on the mental health of secondary school students. The research design and potential risks of the programme were explained to the attendees. The project manager and research team further contacted interested schools. School visits for the participating schools were made to familiarise the school staff with the programme and research team. The research team also conducted a one-day briefing session for all participating schools about a month prior to implementing the programme. "
Eligibility Criteria	students who were part of the recruited schools
Research Design	Quasi-experimental design
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	310 students, 13 classrooms, 4 schools
Grade/School Level	Not reported / Primary School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Hong Kong
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	The Little Prince is Depressed
Comparison Group	Waitlist
Outcomes	Depression symptoms, Stress
Risk of Bias	Moderate
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	"Detailssuchastheteachingmaterialsandmanualsof theprogrammecanbefoundat http://csrp.edu.hk/qef. Eachsession was implementedusingthissequence:introductionofthelearning outcomes,psychoeducationlectures, mini-games/exercises,discus- sions,andconclusions. "
References	Wong, P. W. C., Fu, K.-W., Chan, K. Y. K., Chan, W. S. C., Liu, P. M. Y., Law, Y.-W., & Yip, P. S. F. (2012). Effectiveness of a universal school-based programme for preventing depression in Chinese adolescents: A quasi-experimental pilot study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 142(1), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.050

Study	Wong 2014
Title	Preventing anxiety and depression in adolescents: A randomised controlled trial of two school based Internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy programmes
Start Date	2009
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Schools were recruited from major cities (75%) and inner regional areas of New South Wales"
Eligibility Criteria	Not reported
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Cluster
Cluster Type	School
Average Cluster Size	Not reported
Trial Arms	3
Sample Size	976 students, 12 schools
Grade/School Level	9, 10 / High School
Age	Not reported
Percent Female	70%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	Not reported
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	Australia
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Private
Active Intervention	The Thiswayup Schools
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Anxiety, Depression symptoms, Stress
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	No
Registration	ACTRN12612000414819
Data/Code Availability	"The current online lessons can be viewed at www.thiswayup.org.au/ schools."
References	Wong, N., Kady, L., Mewton, L., Sunderland, M., & Andrews, G. (2014). Preventing anxiety and depression in adolescents: A randomised controlled trial of two school based Internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy programmes. Internet Interventions, 1(2), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2014.05.004

Study	Woods 2011
Title	Effectiveness of a School-Based Indicated Early Intervention Program for Māori and Pacific Adolescents
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	The present study used the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI) as a screening tool in order to identify students at risk of depression and offered selected students the opportunity to participate in the school-based Kiwi ACE program. Four hundred and nineteen Year 10 students (average age 14 years) identifying as Ma - ori and Pacific in eight secondary schools in the North Island of New Zealand were screened for depressive symptoms with the Children’s Depression Inventory (Kovacs, 1992) using a passive consent process. Passive consent meant in this case that parents or caregivers and students were advised about the screening but that no signed consents were necessary from either for the student to take part. The process involved informing the young people of the screening through an assembly and form room talks, and the parents through newsletter articles and letters given to students to take home. Parents or caregivers were given the opportunity to contact the school, the researcher or the supervising university with any questions or concerns, and both caregivers/parents and students were informed of the students’ right to not participate at any point in the study. This method of consent was chosen because there were seen to be logistical problems with administering the questionnaires in schools where some parents had given consent and others had not, and screening of a whole cohort meant that young people who might otherwise be missed and who might be at risk of depression were identified. Schools were selected from across the socioeconomic range using Ministry of Education decile rankings (Ministry of Education, 1997). Two of the schools were drawn from the Wellington metropolitan area, which statistically is a better-educated and higher-income area than the average sector of New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand, 2003). Five schools were located in the greater metropolitan area, which is diverse in terms of income and ethnicity and one school was from a provincial city, replacing a metropolitan school that had to withdraw immediately prior to the screening process because of ill health of the school counsellor. All eight schools approached agreed to take part in the study. The schools consisted of five state coeducational schools, one state single-sex girls’ school, one integrated single-sex girls’ school and one integrated single-sex boys’ school. All Year 10 (average age 14 years) Maori and Pacific students were screened, with all stakeholders being made aware of the aims and time frames of all aspects of the program and its implementation.
Eligibility Criteria	Scoring over the ‘above average’ cutoff point of 63 on the CDI
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	56 students, 8 schools
Grade/School Level	9 / Secondary School
Age	14
Percent Female	Not reported
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	0% AIAN, 0% Asian, 0% Black, 0% Latinx, 100% NHPI, 0% White, 0% Mixed, 0% Other
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	New Zealand
Geographic Area	Urban
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Kiwi ACE program
Comparison Group	No Treatment
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	High
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Woods, B., & Jose, P. E. (2011). Effectiveness of a School-Based Indicated Early Intervention Program for Māori and Pacific Adolescents. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 5(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1375/prp.5.1.40

Study	Young 2016
Title	A Randomized Depression Prevention Trial Comparing Interpersonal Psychotherapy—Adolescent Skills Training to Group Counseling in Schools
Start Date	Not reported
End Date	Not reported
Recruitment Approach	"Adolescents with elevated symptoms of depression were identified through a two-stage screening procedure. First, letters and consent forms were sent home to families describing the depression screening. On the day of the screening, youth whose parents consented to the screening were informed of the procedures, and those who wanted to participate signed a screening assent form. From a total of 9123 students, 2923 (32.0 %) returned parental consent forms, provided assent, and completed the depression screening. Screening rates ranged from 14.1 to 57.1%across the 10 schools. The screening consisted of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies- Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff 1977), a 20-item measure that assesses depressive symptoms over the past week. Adolescents with a CES-D score of 16 or higher were eligible to be approached for the prevention project. As in our prior studies, we used the adult criterion of a score equal to or greater than 16 because we wanted to identify as many adolescents as possible with elevated depressive symptoms. The average CES-D score of the 2923 youth screened was 10.00 (SD=9.51); 593 youth had an elevated CES-D score and were eligible to be approached about the prevention study. These adolescents and their parents were contacted by research staff to describe the prevention project."
Eligibility Criteria	"Adolescents with a CES-D score of 16 or higher were eligible to be approached for the prevention project."
Research Design	Randomized trial
Assignment Level	Individual
Cluster Type	NA
Average Cluster Size	NA
Trial Arms	2
Sample Size	186 students, 10 schools
Grade/School Level	7, 8, 9, 10 / Middle School and High School
Age	14.01 (1.22)
Percent Female	66.7%
Percent Racce/Ethnicity	8.1% Asian, 19.9% Black, 38.2% Latinx, 38.4% White
Percent ELL	Not reported
Percent FRPL	Not reported
Country (State)	United States (New Jersey)
Geographic Area	Not reported
School Type	Not reported
Active Intervention	Interpersonal Psychotherapy-Adolescent Skills Training
Comparison Group	TAU
Outcomes	Depression symptoms
Risk of Bias	Some Concerns
Flow Diagram	Yes
Registration	Not reported
Data/Code Availability	Not reported
References	Young, J. F., Benas, J. S., Schueler, C. M., Gallop, R., Gillham, J. E., & Mufson, L. (2016). A Randomized Depression Prevention Trial Comparing Interpersonal Psychotherapy—Adolescent Skills Training to Group Counseling in Schools. Prevention Science, 17(3), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0620-5 Benas, J. S., McCarthy, A. E., Haimm, C. A., Huang, M., Gallop, R., & Young, J. F. (2019). The Depression Prevention Initiative: Impact on Adolescent Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms in a Randomized Trial. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 48(sup1), S57–S71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1197839