Passive Versus Active Parental Permission: Implications for the Ability of School‐Based Depression Screening to Reach Youth at Risk^*

Abstract

Successful implementation of school-based emotional health screening programs requires careful consideration of how to inform and obtain permission from parents.

A longitudinal study of the social and emotional predictors and consequences of cyber and traditional bullying victimisation

“…Nearly three quarters (74 %) of the comparison sample (n = 1,119) completed all three data collections. At the start of the 2010 school year, the parents of all the grade 8 students in the recruited study schools were asked to provide opt-in, and if no response opt-out (passive), consent for their son or daughter to participate in the study and complete a survey (Anderman et al 1995;Chartier et al 2008). At each school a staff member (school coordinator) was provided with pre-paid packaged envelopes (containing an information letter, consent form and reply paid envelope) to be mailed by the school to the parents.…”

Recruitment of adolescents for a smoking study: use of traditional strategies and social media

“…Adolescents can be difficult to engage in the research process since parental consent is often required for youth under 18 [4,16]. This can be even more challenging when, as is the case with this study, the study involves sensitive issues such as substance use [16,26].…”

Modeling the Impact of School-Based Universal Depression Screening on Additional Service Capacity Needs: A System Dynamics Approach

“…The model was constructed with an assumed screening participation rate of 82.5% of the student body (based on findings suggesting that participation rates range from 80 to 85%; Vander Stoep et al, 2005; Chartier et al, 2008; Kuo et al, 2009; Table 1). In the screening model, the effects on staff responsibilities are nearly immediate.…”

“…For instance, for simplicity and because external referrals are sometimes unavailable or difficult for providers to successfully facilitate relative to in-school referrals (Lyon et al, 2014), the current models did not incorporate referrals to mental health services external to the school. In addition, although we selected an average rate of students screening positive from the empirical literature, research suggests that the prevalence of positive screens varies across schools (Vander Stoep et al, 2005, Chartier et al, 2008). Each of the variables described above (e.g., treatment length/intensity, multi-level intervention approaches, referrals to outside services, rates of positive screens) represents an example of a model parameter than can be represented as a stock, flow, or feedback loop and systematically adjusted to address additional research questions.…”