BackgroundUniversity students are expressing an increased need for mental health support. Mindfulness‐based interventions (MBIs) are being integrated into university stress‐reduction programmes globally. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing MBI effects on university students’ mental and physical health.MethodsWe searched nine databases, including grey literature and trial registries. Two independent reviewers extracted data following a prospective public protocol.ResultsFifty‐one RCTs were included. In comparison with passive controls, and when measured shortly after intervention completion, MBIs improve distress, anxiety, depression, well‐being, rumination, and mindfulness with small to moderate effect sizes, with no benefit found for blood pressure, sleep, life satisfaction, resilience, worry, and thought suppression. Evidence for self‐compassion is inconclusive. Effects last beyond three months for distress and mindfulness, with no data on other outcomes. Compared with active control groups, MBIs significantly improve distress and state anxiety, but not mindfulness, depression, well‐being, affect, trait anxiety, or emotion regulation. Results were robust to adjustment for multiple testing, but RCTs’ risk of bias is generally high. Moderator analyses did not find differential intervention effects according to intervention duration, delivery mode, or sub‐populations.ConclusionsMBIs may be helpful to students but higher‐quality research is needed.

Under-identification of mental health difficulties (MHD) in children and young people contributes to the significant unmet need for mental health care. School-based programmes have the potential to improve identification rates. This systematic review aimed to determine the feasibility of various models of school-based identification of MHD. We conducted systematic searches in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, British Education Index, and ASSIA using terms for mental health combined with terms for school-based identification. We included studies that assessed feasibility of school-based identification of students in formal education aged 3-18 with MHD, symptomatology of MHD, or exposed to risks for MHD. Feasibility was defined in terms of (1) intervention fit, (2) cost and resource implications, (3) intervention complexity, flexibility, manualisation, and time concerns, and (4) adverse events. Thirty-three studies met inclusion criteria. The majority focused on behavioural and socioemotional problems or suicide risk, examined universal screening models, and used cross-sectional designs. In general, school-based programmes for identifying MHD aligned with schools' priorities, but their appropriateness for students varied by condition. Time, resource, and cost concerns were the most common barriers to feasibility across models and conditions. The evidence base regarding feasibility is limited, and study heterogeneity prohibits definitive conclusions about the feasibility of different identification models. Education, health, and government agencies must determine how to allocate available resources to make the widespread adoption of school-based identification programmes more feasible. Furthermore, the definition and measurement of feasibility must be standardised to promote any future comparison between models and conditions.

The study's objective was to identify systemic facilitators and barriers of transferring young adults (ages 17-21) with eating disorders from pediatric to adult health and mental health services. Qualitative interviews were conducted and three themes emerged: (a) difficulties navigating care during the transfer period; (b) challenges achieving and maintaining recovery due to systemic barriers after the transfer of care;and (c) recommendations for facilitating the transfer between systems of care. From the perspective of young adults with eating disorders our study shows that the transition to adult care services may be improved with increased coordination, communication, and collaborative partnerships between pediatric and adult providers.

ObjectiveTo identify priorities for the delivery of community-based Child and Adolescent Mental health Services (CAMHS).Design(1) Qualitative methods to gather public and professional opinions regarding the key principles and components of effective service delivery. (2) Two-round, two-panel adapted Delphi study. The Delphi method was adapted so professionals received additional feedback about the public panel scores. Descriptive statistics were computed. Items rated 8–10 on a scale of importance by ≥80% of both panels were identified as shared priorities.SettingEastern region of England.Participants(1) 53 members of the public; 95 professionals from the children’s workforce. (2) Two panels. Public panel: round 1,n=23; round 2,n=16. Professional panel: round 1,n=44; round 2,n=33.Results51 items met the criterion for between group consensus. Thematic grouping of these items revealed three key findings: the perceived importance of schools in mental health promotion and prevention of mental illness; an emphasis onhowspecialist mental health services are delivered rather thanwhatis delivered (ie, specific treatments/programmes), and the need to monitor and evaluate service impact against shared outcomes that reflect well-being and function, in addition to the mere absence of mental health symptoms or disorders.ConclusionsAreas of consensus represent shared priorities for service provision in the East of England. These findings help to operationalise high level plans for service transformation in line with the goals and needs of those using and working in the local system and may be particularly useful for identifying gaps in ongoing transformation efforts. More broadly, the method used here offers a blueprint that could be replicated by other areas to support the ongoing transformation of CAMHS.

BackgroundMany children and young people experiencing mental health difficulties (MHD) do not access care, often due to inadequate identification. Schools have a unique potential to improve early identification; however, evidence is limited regarding the acceptability of school-based identification programmes. This study aimed to examine parents’ beliefs about the acceptability of school-wide MHD screening in primary schools.MethodsWe collaborated with experts in school-based mental health to develop a questionnaire to measure parental attitudes toward school-wide MHD screening. The questionnaire contained 13 items relating to acceptability; three open-text boxes for comments on harms, benefits, and screening in general; and four questions that captured demographic information. Parents of children attending four primary schools in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk completed the questionnaire. We calculated counts, percentages, and means for each statement, and analysed responses to open-ended questions using content analysis.ResultsTwo hundred ninety parents returned the questionnaire across the four schools (61% response rate). In the 260 questionnaires analysed, a total of 254 parents (98%) believed that it is important to identify MHD early in life, and 251 (97%) believed that schools have an important role in promoting pupils’ emotional health. The majority of parents (N = 213; 82%) thought that screening would be helpful, although 34 parents (13%) thought that screening would be harmful. Perceived harms of screening included inaccurate identification, stigmatisation, and low availability of follow-up care. There was no clear consensus regarding how to obtain consent or provide feedback of screening results. There were no significant differences in responses according to ethnicity, gender, age, or school.ConclusionsResults suggest that most parents within the socio-demographic context of our study will accept MHD screening within primary schools, and that school-based screening is viable from the perspective of parents. The comments provided about potential harms as well as suggestions for programme delivery are relevant to inform the development and evaluation of acceptable and sustainable school-based identification models. Implementation and scale-up of such programmes will require further understanding of the perspectives of mental health professionals, school staff, and the general public as well as further evaluation against the established standards for identification programmes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-6279-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.