Social media is flooded with “talks”, “workshops” or “guides” for schools in which the term “prevention” is used indiscriminately and without any evidence other than that self-proclaimed by the professional in his own slides. And this occurs for suicidal behavior , substance use , sexual violence, bullying, affective sexual education, mindfulness , etc.

Pseudo-psychological dissemination in the media and on social networks is everywhere, appearing on every smartphone screen of a generation that is unaware that the telephone was born with the “crazy” purpose of talking to another person. And on the screen of adults who are hyper-concerned about the hyper-psychologization of any discomfort, hyper-attending to and hyper-reinforcing certain behaviors of hyper-attention to oneself in a differential way. “The eye that sees itself is sick” said Victor Frankl . Little more to add.

We are living in strange times in which the landscape is particularly complex and paradoxical, since the mental health of children and adolescents has never been so fragile nor, at the same time, has there been such a high level of awareness regarding its care in Western countries.

Mental health in educational contexts

UNICEF has determined that school-based psychological interventions are cost-effective. The school context is an ideal environment in which to implement empirically supported actions to promote psychological well-being and, specifically, to prevent psychological difficulties.

However, in Spain, these types of interventions are mainly characterized by good intentions and few scientific and quality criteria .

A handful of prevention programs that have published their records in clinical trials databases are saved , which have theoretical models, CONSORT guidelines and, above all, empirical support endorsed by comparison with a control group and by the publication of their results in indexed peer-reviewed journals .

The purpose of an outcome evaluation is to assess the extent to which the behaviors of people who received the intervention have changed compared to those who did not. Over the long term, the goal is to reduce a specific problem (for example, substance use or suicide attempts in a given population).

It is therefore a matter of obtaining evidence of validity and rigorous data that is far removed from a mere personal impression of the professional or satisfaction with the session received.

The key is the term “prevention program,” because, stricto sensu , something is preventive to the extent that it has demonstrated the achievement of such objectives.

It is essential to understand the fundamentals of prevention science and international quality standards . To speak of a “program” requires multidisciplinary, systematic and excellent work at various stages, including robust research designs and ethical aspects.

And, above all, psychological prevention should only be provided when necessary, without considering the “just in case”. That is why an essential phase of quality standards is the assessment of needs. Psychological interventions are not homeopathic solutions based on principles prior to Louis Pasteur .

Have the external activities that enter the classrooms been developed according to these criteria?

Bad practices in prevention

Public administration must combine its decision-making criteria with those of researchers and academics who promote, throughout Europe , approaches based on innovation and science , including urgently discontinuing popular but ineffective, if not harmful, approaches.

Perhaps the field of addictions manages to avoid this scenario with difficulty, as we have a portal of good practices and a more solid tradition of research that has determined that many popular initiatives are not only ineffective, but can actually increase the problem .

Take note of such ineffective or harmful practices: increasing students’ knowledge by providing detailed (and age-inappropriate) information about certain aspects of the problems you are trying to prevent; receiving visits from law enforcement agencies with scare tactics and anecdotes; providing testimonies from people who have experienced similar problems; focusing solely on building self-esteem; using unstructured discussions; relying on teacher intuition; developing peer-led activities; and distributing posters or leaflets.

However, we are witnessing common practices in which classrooms and assembly halls receive diverse professionals loaded with good intentions, but shamelessly addressing people at different stages of development and with diverse needs .

They come with disparate conceptualizations of the same phenomenon, simplify the causes of complex problems and offer irrelevant or counterproductive information, without theoretical, methodological or ethical training, and with a glaring absence of evaluation of the short and long-term results of the intended “talk” or “workshop.”

At best, as we can tell you in advance, they will have no impact at all . At worst, some content may cause iatrogenic harm (increase discomfort due to the effect of the intervention itself).

From the perspective of prevention science, we want to highlight the need to make informed decisions, understanding that the school must be a safe, inclusive space that cares for diversity . Aware of the difficulty of such an undertaking, it is only fair to mention the extraordinary collaboration that many well-trained management teams and professionals maintain with research, as well as their high level of commitment to science and public service.

What do we talk about when we talk about prevention?

According to the World Health Organization , the prevention of psychological problems consists of reducing their incidence, prevalence or risk condition and their impact on the person, the family and society. It involves the mobilization of individual and contextual resources, and the making of political decisions anchored in scientific evidence.

It is a complementary discipline to promotion that consists, precisely, in promoting health by increasing well-being, competence, psychological resilience and the creation of environments and conditions that favor it.

The European Society for Research Prevention highlights the preeminent nature of behaviour as a common factor and underlines the importance of behavioural risk and protection factors as important elements.

The relevance of the psychology professional specifically trained in prevention is, therefore, indisputable in the educational context.

What works, for whom, under what circumstances and how

It is necessary and efficient to have programs that allow children to be prepared for the path, and not the path for the children, by learning specific skills and competencies. A path that is particularly intricate due to the challenge posed by social networks and the overwhelming pressure to be different.

Ultimately, we need research that reveals what works, for whom , under what circumstances and how, since contextual factors are decisive in educational environments.

Otherwise, the potential benefits of school-based preventive interventions may also be their weaknesses . This is particularly important for universal approaches, where all students are exposed to the same content. Some adolescents may learn strategies that are irrelevant to them or, worse, that increase their distress. This outcome may even be masked when results are averaged .

Such well-intentioned interventions can inadvertently and wrongly encourage adolescents to attend to and discuss supposedly “negative” thoughts and emotions, forgetting that emotions are, above all, functional, adaptive and operative, like any other behavior.

Similarly, people are taught to label certain emotions with “psychological labels,” which can lead to changes in self-concept (e.g., “I have anxiety”) and behavior (e.g., avoidance) that ultimately increase distress .

In addition, adolescents are particularly susceptible to the influence of their peers. In fact, interventions in schools are often carried out in groups. This can make it easier for some to influence the mood of others or learn problematic behaviours ( deviancy training ).

Therefore, this type of activities in group settings , something very common in educational centers, could lead to an increase in experiences of discomfort .

Prevention is not child’s play

Are these voluntary practices contributing to the current and extremely complex mental health crisis in children and adolescents ?

The picture is not simple. But we cannot continue under the general assumption that any school activity is beneficial just because the adults who come to the classroom consider it so. This is particularly relevant in an era in which clinical language has invaded everything.

An essential starting point would be to have school interventions carried out with scientific rigor . We need everyone – public administration, professionals, researchers and academics in psychology , schools , families , teachers, the media and civil society – to row in the same direction, because it is up to all of us to take responsibility.

The quality of life of our society’s future capital is at stake. And it is no child’s play.

Author Bios: Susana Al-Halabi is Senior Lecturer, Psychology at the University of Oviedo and Eduardo Fonseca Pedrero is Professor of Psychology at the University of La Rioja