Effectiveness of Mental Health First Aid: a meta-analysis

Amy K. Maslowski · Rick A. LaCaille · Lara J. LaCaille · Catherine M. Reich · Jill Klingner

55 citations0/0 files storedMental Health Review Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Mental Health Treatment and Access Suicide and Self-Harm Studies Cardiac Arrest and Resuscitation

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper, a meta-analysis and systematic review of Mental Health First Aid (MHFA), is to focus on studies that reported trainees’ mental health literacy, attitudes and helping-related behaviors, as well as the impact of the program for the people who came into contact with trainees (i.e. recipients). Design/methodology/approach A systematic search included several online databases of published studies, dissertations or theses, and journals commonly publishing research in this area. Studies were randomized or non-randomized control trials using an intervention based upon the adult or youth MHFA curriculum. Findings Of the 8,257 initial articles, 16 met inclusion criteria. Small-to-moderate effect sizes (Hedges’ g=0.18–0.53) were found for the primary outcomes for the trainees with effects appearing to be maintained at follow-up. Study quality was inversely associated with effect size. No evidence of investigator allegiance was detected. Few studies examined the effects for those who received aid from a MHFA trainee. Preliminary quantitative evidence appeared lacking (Hedges’ g=−0.04 to 0.12); furthermore, a qualitative review found limited positive effects. Research limitations/implications MHFA trainees appear to benefit from MHFA; however, objective behavioral changes are in need of greater emphasis. Additionally, considerably greater attention and effort in testing effects on distressed recipients is needed with future empirical investigations. Originality/value This is the first known review that includes preliminary findings on the effects of MHFA on the distressed recipients of the aid. It is anticipated that this will prompt further investigation into the impact of MHFA.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 55 citations exist upstream.

References

2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 1996A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey 2000Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2002Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress 2008Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies 2008Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies 1999Public conceptions of mental illness: labels, causes, dangerousness, and social distance.

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.