The review focused on adolescents aged 10 to 19 who experienced symptoms of depression or anxiety but did not meet the criteria for clinical disorders. Its authors said this group is particularly relevant in low- and middle-income countries, where 90% of the world’s adolescents live and where access to evidence-supported mental health services is limited. A 2021 State of the World’s Children report estimated that adolescent mental health conditions cost the global economy $451 billion annually in lost human capital, with the projected total rising to $620 billion by 2040.

The systematic search covered Academic Search Complete, APA PsycInfo, Global Health, MEDLINE and SocINDEX with Full Text for studies published from January 2013 through July 2024. It identified 1,710 records, removed 368 duplicates and sent 1,342 records for abstract screening. Fifty-seven full texts were assessed, resulting in the inclusion of 22 studies: 19 randomized controlled trials and three quasi-experimental studies. Inter-rater agreement during screening was high, with a Cohen’s kappa of 0.85. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO as CRD42024598603, and the review followed PRISMA 2020 and Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guidance.

Eligible studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs with a comparison group and quantitatively evaluated depression or anxiety outcomes. Medication-only interventions, studies that did not report separate scores for depression and anxiety, and studies focused on extreme trauma were excluded. Because the interventions, methods and outcome measures varied substantially, the researchers did not conduct a formal meta-analysis. Instead, they calculated standardized effect sizes, known as Cohen’s d, and synthesized the findings narratively.

Two reviewers evaluated methodological rigor with an adapted Methodological Quality Rating Scale, assessed risk of bias with version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for quasi-experimental studies, and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Among the randomized trials, six had low risk of bias, 12 raised some concerns and one had high risk. Common concerns included unblinded outcome assessors and the absence of pre-registered protocols with pre-specified analysis plans. All three quasi-experimental studies were rated at serious risk of bias.

The clearest finding involved depression interventions delivered by non-specialists. Six randomized trials had a median effect size of 0.26, with a range of 0.07 to 0.39. They showed no serious concerns across the GRADE domains, had consistent effects with overlapping confidence intervals, and included 67% adequately powered studies, producing a high certainty rating. By comparison, five specialist-delivered depression studies had a median effect size of 1.01 but a much wider range of 0.04 to 2.88. Only 20% were adequately powered, and the evidence was rated very low certainty because of risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

For anxiety, only four non-specialist-delivered studies were available. Their median effect was 0.58, with a range of 0.37 to 2.00, and the evidence was rated low certainty because the effects were inconsistent. Specialist-delivered anxiety interventions were assessed in 12 studies, had a median effect of 1.35 and were rated very low certainty. The trials also addressed different forms of anxiety, including test, social and generalized anxiety, and used at least six different anxiety instruments, limiting direct comparisons. The evidence therefore could neither confirm nor refute whether specialist delivery is more effective than non-specialist delivery for anxiety.

The comparison by setting was also inconclusive. Twelve interventions were conducted in schools and 10 in non-school environments, including hospitals, community organizations and online platforms. Certainty of evidence was very low for both settings and both outcomes because of problems with bias, inconsistent effects and imprecision. Across the included studies, effect sizes ranged from 0.04 to 2.88 for depression and from 0.21 to 2.87 for anxiety. Differences in sample size, outcome measures, dosage and clinical model made it difficult to isolate the effect of implementation setting, but did not make the comparison impossible in principle.

The review also identified weaknesses in the underlying literature. Sixty-four percent of studies lacked adequate statistical power, commonly because of small samples or participant dropout; 59% had no follow-up phase; and 36% did not discuss generalizability. Geographic representation was uneven, with 10 studies from the Middle East and North Africa, including eight from Iran, compared with two from South Asia. Other limitations included a relatively small review, exclusion of gray literature, reliance on English-language publications, subjective methodological ratings, and possible differences in how adolescents across cultures perceive and report symptoms. The authors called for larger, adequately powered trials, longer follow-up, registered analysis plans, culturally validated measures, and further comparisons of provider types and settings, especially for anxiety.

Subject of Research: Effectiveness of psychological interventions for subclinical adolescent depression and anxiety in low- and middle-income countries

Article Title: Mental health interventions for adolescents with depression and anxiety in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the evidence

Article References: Yin, S., Tian, T., & Auslander, W. (2026). Mental health interventions for adolescents with depression and anxiety in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, Article 1809434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1809434

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1809434

Keywords: systematic review, adolescent mental health, depression, anxiety, task shifting, non-specialist providers, low- and middle-income countries, GRADE, school-based interventions, Mental, health, interventions

The scale of the problem these interventions confront is difficult to overstate. The United Nations has identified gender equity and the elimination of violence against females as central pillars of sustainable development, and the World Health Organization’s prevalence estimates show that physical or sexual intimate partner violence touches women on every continent. Spanish-speaking countries are extraordinarily diverse, spanning wealthy European economies and lower- and middle-income nations across Latin America and the Caribbean, yet the review’s authors note that gender inequality remains prevalent across the region and that gender-based violence constitutes a major public health problem regardless of a country’s economic standing. Femicide, dating violence among adolescents, abuse during pregnancy, and violence linked to problem drinking all appear in the literature the team examined, underscoring that this is not a single phenomenon but a family of harms woven through intimate relationships, schools, clinics, prisons, and entire communities.

Methodologically, the review is a model of transparency. The researchers applied the PICOS framework, a structured approach that spells out Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design criteria, to decide which studies made the cut. They searched nine academic databases, screened records with the Rayyan web and mobile application built for systematic reviews, and followed updated methodological guidance for scoping reviews along with the PRISMA-ScR reporting checklist. Once the eligible studies were assembled, the team tabulated the characteristics of each intervention and its reported outcomes, then classified every program by its level of prevention. That classification is where the review’s most striking structural finding emerges: of the 39 studies, 14 focused on primary prevention, stopping violence before it ever begins; 6 addressed secondary prevention, responding to early warning signs and at-risk situations; and 19, nearly half, concentrated on tertiary prevention, working with people already affected by violence.

That heavy tilt toward tertiary prevention tells a story in itself. Most of the effort documented in the literature goes into repairing damage after it has occurred, through programs for incarcerated offenders, shelters for survivors, and treatment for women already experiencing abuse. The review catalogues a remarkable range of such tertiary work, including psychological treatment programs for men convicted of gender-based violence in Spanish prisons, community rehabilitation programs for convicted intimate partner violence offenders, and the Contexto Programme, a batterer intervention program whose success indicators and recidivism risk reduction have been assessed in multiple studies. In the Dominican Republic, researchers conducted a process evaluation of a community-based domestic violence perpetrator program and even published a brief report comparing recidivists with non-recidivists who attended it. These are the kinds of programs that operate in the criminal justice system’s shadow, and their results, as the review notes, were more nuanced than those of earlier-stage interventions.

The primary and secondary prevention studies, by contrast, delivered uniformly positive findings, a pattern that should make policymakers sit up. School-based programs feature prominently. In Mexico City, the True Love program, a school-based initiative to reduce dating violence among adolescents, was evaluated in a study published in Prevention Science, while another Mexican educational workshop targeting dating violence among college students showed measurable effects. In Colombia, a prevention program for gender-based intimate partner violence was tested at a primary school and reported in Frontiers in Psychology. Spanish researchers evaluated an online program for the prevention of dating violence in a mixed pre-test and post-test study, and a quasi-experimental study examined an integrative school-based intervention on child protection against violence. A participatory educational intervention delved into teen dating violence, gender, and health assets using a mixed methods evaluation, and another comparative quasi-experimental study tested an educational intervention designed to decrease adolescents’ justification of dating violence, attacking the attitudes that normalize abuse before they harden into behavior.

Health systems emerge as another critical front. A cluster randomized controlled trial in Mexico City tested a nurse-delivered, clinic-based intervention to address intimate partner violence among low-income women, one of the more methodologically robust studies in the entire review. In Lima, Peru, a pilot intervention program targeted intimate partner violence during pregnancy, a period when abuse can endanger two lives at once. A nested cohort intervention study spanning Denmark and Spain, the STOP Study, tested video consultations and a safety app for pregnant women exposed to intimate partner violence, showing how digital health tools can reach women who might never walk into a shelter. In Honduras, an evaluation examined an intimate partner violence training program for teachers and health professionals, betting on community leaders as multipliers of prevention. Training programs for healthcare professionals in domestic violence have a long evidence base, and studies from Spain examined how educational interventions changed health sciences students’ perceptions of obstetric violence and how dramatized video problems improved postgraduate nurses’ management of gender violence.

Community-based and culturally tailored approaches round out the portfolio. In Panama, researchers applied participatory processes to develop culturally appropriate educational materials on domestic violence prevention with Ngäbe-Buglé women, an approach grounded in community-based participatory research methods that treat communities as partners rather than audiences. A community-based strategy for preventing gender-based violence among people living in vulnerable conditions was implemented in Seville, Spain. In Bolivia, lessons were drawn from implementing Program P, a parenting program designed to prevent family violence. In Peru, a pilot program whose name translates roughly as ‘the one who sees and helps’ was evaluated for gender-based violence prevention, and in Mexico, a cognitive-behavioral intervention sought to empower women abused by spouses with drinking problems. Technology also appears in the mix, with researchers designing and testing the acceptability of a psychosocial text messaging intervention for victims of gender-based violence, and a training program aimed at young lawbreakers targeted gender-based cyber violence specifically.

Yet for all this activity, the review’s methodological audit is blunt. Many of the 39 studies relied on limited sample sizes or lacked comparison groups altogether, making it hard to know whether observed changes were caused by the interventions or by something else. Follow-up assessments were often short or missing, so the durability of any positive effects remains largely unknown. Only seven of the studies used a theoretical framework or model, a strikingly small proportion given that behavioral science theory is widely regarded as essential for designing and implementing effective public health interventions. Without an explicit theory of change, programs risk being a collection of activities rather than a coherent strategy, and without rigorous evaluation designs, even a genuinely effective program cannot prove itself or be scaled with confidence. The authors also flag a deeper gap: research-based literature on gender-based violence in Spanish-language dominant countries is limited overall, and further research is very much needed.

The review’s central conclusion is that successfully addressing gender-based violence demands a variety of approaches, working in schools and community settings as well as in shelters for women experiencing violence and in criminal justice settings with men incarcerated for it. No single lever pulls hard enough. The encouraging news is that every primary and secondary prevention study in the review reported some positive findings, suggesting that the field’s upstream tools, from classroom curricula to clinic-based screening to community leader training, are pointing in the right direction. The sobering news is that tertiary interventions, the ones dealing with the deepest and most dangerous cases, produced more nuanced results, and that the evidence base as a whole is built on fragile methodological foundations. For a region where gender inequality remains entrenched and where the United Nations’ sustainable development goals have made eliminating violence against women an explicit target, the message is clear: the interventions exist, many of them work at least in the short term, but the science of proving and perfecting them is still running well behind the scale of the problem.

What happens next will depend on whether funders and researchers treat this evidence gap as urgently as the violence itself. The review’s authors, affiliated with institutions including Thomas Jefferson University, the Medical University of South Carolina, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, have produced a map of where the field stands. Turning that map into progress will require larger samples, comparison groups, longer follow-up, and theoretically grounded program design, applied across the full spectrum of prevention. Until then, the women and girls of the Spanish-speaking world are counting on interventions whose promise is real but whose proof, in too many cases, is still being written.

Subject of Research: Preventive interventions to reduce gender-based violence against women and girls in Spanish-speaking countries

Article Title: Reducing violence against women and girls across Spanish-speaking sovereign states: a scoping review of preventive interventions

Article References: Kelly, P. J., Rudner, N., & Aboul-Enein, B. H. (2026). Reducing violence against women and girls across Spanish-speaking sovereign states: a scoping review of preventive interventions. Journal of Population Research, 43(4), Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-026-09441-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s12546-026-09441-1

Keywords: gender-based violence, scoping review, Spanish-speaking countries, intimate partner violence, primary prevention, tertiary prevention, dating violence, public health, Latin America, perpetrator programs, school-based interventions, women's health

The study recruited adolescents aged 13 to 18 who were attending high schools in a provincial center in eastern Türkiye. Participants completed a demographic information form along with three validated instruments: the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale, which measures the core features of behavioral addiction such as salience, tolerance, mood modification, and conflict; the Friendship Qualities Scale, which assesses dimensions of peer relationships such as companionship, help, intimacy, and conflict; and the Adolescents’ Attitudes Toward Violence Scale, which captures how acceptable young people consider violent behavior to be. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ardahan University Non-Interventional Research Ethics Committee, with written informed consent from parents or legal guardians and assent from the adolescents themselves, and the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

The headline numbers are striking in their ordinariness. The mean Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale score in the sample was 17.18, with a standard deviation of 5.30 — a figure suggesting that, on average, these adolescents were not in the extreme range of problematic use, though individual scores varied considerably. The mean peer relations score was 82.15, and the mean attitude toward violence score was 24.69. What matters for the study’s central question is not the raw averages but the correlations between them, and it is there that the researchers found their most interesting result.

Using Pearson correlation analysis, the team found a positive and statistically significant association between social media addiction scores and attitudes toward violence: the correlation coefficient was 0.214, with a p-value below .001. In practical terms, adolescents who reported more compulsive, dependency-like engagement with social media platforms were also more likely to view violence as acceptable. The correlation is modest — a coefficient of 0.214 means the two variables share only a small fraction of their variance — but in a sample of 450, it is unlikely to be a statistical fluke. Importantly, a cross-sectional design cannot establish which way the arrow points, or whether a third factor drives both. Adolescents already prone to aggression may gravitate toward certain online content, or the content itself may shape attitudes, or both processes may reinforce each other over time.

The second major finding was, in a sense, the absence of one. The correlation between social media addiction and the quality of peer relationships was essentially zero, at r = 0.004, which was not statistically significant. This null result challenges a common intuition: that teenagers who are glued to their phones must be sacrificing the depth and warmth of their real-world friendships. In this sample, at least, problematic social media use and friendship quality appeared to operate on independent tracks. A teenager could score high on social media addiction while still reporting strong, supportive friendships — or low on addiction with strained peer relations — without any systematic link between the two.

To test these relationships more rigorously, the researchers turned to multiple linear regression, a statistical technique that estimates the unique contribution of each predictor while holding the others constant. When both social media addiction and peer relationship quality were entered as predictors of attitudes toward violence, only social media addiction remained a significant factor, with a standardized beta coefficient of 0.126 and a p-value below .001. Peer relations, once the shared variance was accounted for, showed no significant association with violent attitudes. The picture that emerges is one in which problematic social media use stands apart as the variable of interest, while friendship quality — however important it may be for other aspects of adolescent development — did not predict attitudes toward violence in this model.

The researchers were candid about the limits of their explanatory power. The regression model explained just 4.2 percent of the variance in the outcome, an R-squared of 0.042, which the authors themselves describe as limited. This is an important caveat for anyone tempted to over-interpret the findings. Attitudes toward violence in adolescence are shaped by a vast web of influences — family environment, socioeconomic conditions, exposure to violence at home or in the community, personality traits, gender norms, and media consumption far beyond social platforms. A single model built on two psychological variables was never going to account for much of that complexity. What the study offers is not a comprehensive explanation but a targeted, statistically supported association that justifies deeper investigation.

Why might social media addiction and violent attitudes travel together? The authors suggest that problematic social media use should be understood not merely as a social phenomenon but in relation to behavioral and psychosocial factors. Several mechanisms are plausible and consistent with the broader literature. Compulsive use often involves prolonged exposure to algorithmically curated content, which can include aggressive, degrading, or violent material. The disinhibiting anonymity of online spaces may normalize hostile communication styles that bleed into offline attitudes. Sleep disruption, mood dysregulation, and impulsivity — all documented correlates of problematic digital use — are themselves linked to irritability and aggressive responding. And for some adolescents, social media may become a stage for relational aggression, cyberbullying, and status contests in which hostility is rewarded with attention. None of these pathways was tested directly in this study, but each offers a testable hypothesis for future longitudinal work.

The null finding on peer relationships deserves its own reflection. Friendship quality is often treated as a protective factor against a wide range of adolescent risk behaviors, and it may well be. But this study suggests that protective friendships do not necessarily buffer the association between compulsive social media use and violent attitudes — or, put differently, that the mechanism linking heavy social media use to violent attitudes does not run through the quality of adolescents’ offline friendships. That distinction matters for intervention design. A program that strengthens peer bonds may improve wellbeing in many ways, yet the data here hint that it may not, by itself, blunt the attitudinal correlates of problematic digital habits.

The practical implications the authors draw are correspondingly focused. They point to school-based interventions and digital literacy programs as promising avenues for promoting healthier social media use among adolescents. Digital literacy, in this framing, is not just about spotting misinformation; it encompasses the self-regulatory skills needed to recognize compulsive patterns of use, critically evaluate the content a feed delivers, and understand how online experiences can shape emotions and attitudes. Because the study was conducted in a single provincial center with a cross-sectional design, generalization requires caution — attitudes toward violence and patterns of platform use vary across cultures, regions, and age bands. Still, the study’s methodological transparency, its use of validated instruments, and its honest reporting of a small effect size make it a useful building block. As researchers worldwide grapple with the mental and behavioral consequences of an always-online adolescence, findings like these — modest, carefully bounded, but statistically firm — are exactly the kind of evidence that accumulates into understanding. The next step is longitudinal and experimental work that can disentangle whether compulsive scrolling nudges attitudes toward violence, whether pre-existing attitudes drive the scrolling, or whether both spring from a common psychological root.

Subject of Research: The association between social media addiction, peer relationship quality, and attitudes toward violence among adolescents

Article Title: Associations between social media addiction, peer relationships and attitudes toward violence among adolescents: a cross-sectional study

Article References: Dursun, E., Oluç, T., Arga, Z., Akyol, T., & Çiftci, K. (2026). Associations between social media addiction, peer relationships and attitudes toward violence among adolescents: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05699-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40359-026-05699-5

Keywords: adolescents, social media addiction, peer relationships, attitudes toward violence, cross-sectional study, Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale, digital literacy, adolescent psychology, problematic social media use, regression analysis, Türkiye, school-based interventions

The research team used a random-effects model, the standard statistical framework for combining results across studies that differ in design, samples, and settings. This approach treats the true effect of interventions as varying from study to study rather than assuming a single universal value, which is essential when pooling trials that range from kindergarten aggression-prevention lessons to web-based cyberbullying programs for adolescents. The pooled results showed that intervention programs were associated with a reduction in bullying perpetration with an effect size of 0.78, and a reduction in victimization with an effect size of 0.74. In behavioral research, effect sizes of this magnitude are generally considered moderate to large, suggesting that the programs did not merely nudge attitudes but were linked to substantial changes in reported behavior.

Equally striking were the secondary outcomes. Programs improved participants’ social skills with an effect size of 0.62 and boosted well-being with an effect size of 0.83, the largest effect in the analysis. This pattern supports a growing consensus in developmental science that effective anti-bullying work is not simply about punishing aggressors or warning victims. Instead, the most successful interventions build positive capacities—empathy, assertiveness, conflict resolution, emotional regulation—that displace aggressive dynamics before they take hold. Many of the included studies drew on cognitive behavioral therapy, empathy training, creative drama, peer support structures, and human-values education, reflecting the diverse theoretical traditions that Turkish researchers have adapted to their school system.

The authors were careful to flag an important statistical caveat: the effects varied considerably across studies, a phenomenon known as between-study heterogeneity. When heterogeneity is high, pooled estimates should be read as averages of a diverse landscape rather than as a single reliable prediction for any given school. To probe that variation, the team conducted exploratory moderator analyses, examining whether effect sizes differed systematically by characteristics such as educational level, participant type, and theoretical background. For bullying perpetration, effects were associated with educational level and participant type; for victimization, effects were associated with the theoretical background of the program. However, the researchers urged caution, noting that some subgroups contained few studies and that moderators were examined in separate models rather than simultaneously, which limits how confidently these patterns can be generalized.

One of the more practically useful findings emerged from exploratory univariable meta-regression analyses: session duration was associated with bullying effect sizes, whereas the number of sessions was not. In other words, what seemed to matter was how long students spent in each intervention session, not simply how many sessions were scheduled. This distinction carries real implications for program design. A school might assume that spreading a curriculum across many brief meetings is sufficient, but the data hint that sustained, in-depth engagement within each session may be the active ingredient. The finding aligns with mechanistic accounts of behavior change, which suggest that skills such as empathy and self-regulation require enough practice time within a session to consolidate.

The Turkish context makes the study particularly valuable for the international literature. Global meta-analyses, including influential syntheses by Farrington and Ttofi and updated reviews by Gaffney and colleagues, have established that school-based anti-bullying programs work on average, but questions persist about whether findings from Finland’s KiVa program, Australia’s Friendly Schools initiative, or Italy’s No Trap! model transfer to other educational cultures. Türkiye presents a distinctive case: a large, centralized education system overseen by the Ministry of National Education, rising policy attention to peer bullying, and a research literature that has expanded rapidly over the past decade. By quantifying effects specifically within this system, the new analysis provides evidence that anti-bullying strategies can succeed outside the Western contexts where most evaluations have historically been conducted.

The scope of the included studies is itself notable. Participants ranged from preschool children as young as four to adolescents of seventeen, and the interventions spanned traditional bullying and cyberbullying alike. Some programs targeted gifted students, children with specific learning difficulties, and refugee children under temporary protection, underscoring that bullying risk is not evenly distributed and that tailored approaches may be needed for vulnerable groups. Others tested delivery innovations, from drama-based sensitivity training to web-based psychoeducation grounded in cognitive behavioral principles. This breadth allowed the meta-analysis to speak to a question that single trials cannot: whether the anti-bullying enterprise, taken as a whole, is producing consistent benefits across ages, formats, and populations within one national setting.

The authors emphasize that their results underscore the importance of developing comprehensive, theoretically informed, and culturally responsive anti-bullying strategies. The moderator findings about theoretical background suggest that the conceptual engine of a program—whether it targets cognitions, emotions, values, or peer group dynamics—may shape how well it reduces victimization, even if the analysis cannot yet pinpoint which theory wins. The researchers also frame their work as informing adaptation beyond Türkiye: by identifying potential mechanisms, such as extended session duration, and boundary conditions, such as educational level, the study offers a roadmap for practitioners elsewhere who must decide whether and how to import or adapt programs designed in another cultural milieu.

Limitations remain, and the authors are transparent about them. The moderator analyses were exploratory, some categories rested on a small number of studies, and the high heterogeneity means that individual programs will vary in effectiveness. The meta-analysis also relied on previously published studies, which may themselves differ in methodological rigor. Still, the headline conclusion is difficult to dismiss: across dozens of trials and more than 1,500 children and adolescents, school-based interventions in Türkiye were consistently associated with less bullying, less victimization, better social skills, and greater well-being. For policymakers weighing investment in anti-bullying infrastructure, and for researchers designing the next generation of programs, the message is that these interventions are worth the effort—provided they are grounded in theory, given enough time in each session to work, and adapted with care to the students they are meant to protect.

Subject of Research: The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying intervention programs in Türkiye, examined through a meta-analysis of 35 studies.

Article Title: What Works Against Peer Bullying? A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Interventions in Türkiye

Article References: Haspolat, N. K., Ağırkan, M., Ciminli, A., & Koç, M. (2026). What Works Against Peer Bullying? A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Interventions in Türkiye. Educational Psychology Review, 38(1), Article 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10214-8

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s10648-026-10214-8

Keywords: peer bullying, bullying prevention, meta-analysis, school-based interventions, victimization, social skills, well-being, cyberbullying, Türkiye, educational psychology, effect size, random-effects model