[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"mental-health-outcomes\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:mental-health-outcomes":29},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,4,0,[8,54,82,111],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":15,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":24,"briefSummary":26,"conditions":27,"keywords":33,"overallStatus":42,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":43,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":44,"startDateStruct":47,"completionDateStruct":48,"leadSponsor":50,"locationsCount":53},"100645213","overvaluation-of-weight-and-shape-intervention-vs-the-body-project-100645213",false,"NCT07678554","Overvaluation of Weight and Shape Intervention vs The Body Project","Pilot Testing Overvaluation of Weight and Shape Intervention vs The Body Project","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Female-identifying\n* High School\n* College Adolescents\n* Ages 14-22\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Non-female identifying\n* Outside of the United States",true,"FEMALE","14 Years","22 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},90,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","Priorities aims to reduce body image concerns, prevent eating disorders, bolster self-esteem, and promote mental and emotional health by helping participants identify and nurture alternative sources of self-worth. Priorities would use group discussions, role-plays \\& behavioral challenges, homework assignments \\& letter-writing, and self-worth activism to achieve this. The Priorities intervention will be compared to The Body Project (an existing and successful harm reduction and eating disorder prevention program) for its effectiveness of reducing body image concerns and eating disorder outcomes. This study aims to evaluate whether there is a more effective eating disorder prevention program than The Body Project.",[28,29,30,31,32],"Body Image","Mental Health Outcomes","Eating Disorders","Body Dysmorphic Disorders","Self-esteem",[34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41],"Eating disorder","Female","Body project","Priorities","self-esteem","adolescent mental health","Body dysmorphia","Disordered eating","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-28",{"date":45,"type":46},"2026-07-01","ACTUAL",{"date":45,"type":22},{"date":49,"type":22},"2027-06-01",{"name":51,"class":52},"Stanford University","OTHER",1,{"id":55,"slug":56,"hasResults":11,"nctId":57,"briefTitle":58,"officialTitle":58,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":59,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":60,"minAge":61,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":62,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":64,"briefSummary":65,"conditions":66,"keywords":70,"overallStatus":42,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":72,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":73,"startDateStruct":75,"completionDateStruct":77,"leadSponsor":79,"locationsCount":81},"100614153","pilot-feasibility-trial-of-a-peer-support-program-for-trauma-survivors-100614153","NCT07275892","Pilot Feasibility Trial of a Peer Support Program for Trauma Survivors","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* adult patients (18 years+) who have experienced an unintentional traumatic injury resulting in hospitalization at Sunnybrook and who will be discharged to inpatient rehabilitation at St. John's Rehab after acute care.\n* must be able to communicate in English\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* patients who experienced: a) an intentional self-harm injury (because self-harm suggests a history of mental health issues prior to the trauma requiring specific psychiatric supports)\n* patients who experienced: an injury caused by an intimate partner (because these injuries are typically underpinned by chronic exposure to domestic violence which requires interventions that promote patient safety and interrupt the pattern of violence)\n* patients who experienced: a violently-acquired injury (as this patient population already receives specific clinical and social support through Sunnybrook's BReAking the Cycle of Violence with Empathy (BRAVE) program).\n* patients with substantial cognitive impairment and a history of substance misuse if their HCPs indicate that either condition will impede the their ability to provide informed consent and\u002For participate safely in the trial","ALL","18 Years",{"count":63,"type":22},49,[25],"Traumatic injuries from events like car crashes, falls, or fires are a leading cause of disability. Survivors often face not only physical challenges but also long-lasting pain, mental health challenges and difficulty returning to work and family life. Although medical care focuses on physical recovery, survivors frequently report that their emotional and social needs are overlooked and unmet.\n\nPeer support-guidance from people who have lived through similar injuries-can reduce distress and improve coping. However, no programs in Canada currently provide peer support to trauma survivors across their recovery journey, from hospital to rehabilitation to community living.\n\nThe investigators worked with trauma survivors, caregivers, and healthcare providers to co-design a Peer Support Program (PSP) that offers support throughout these stages. This pilot study will test whether the program is feasible and acceptable, and explore its early impact on recovery. Results will guide a future larger trial to expand peer support in trauma care.",[67,68,69,29],"Traumatic Injury","Burns","Amputation",[71,67],"Peer Support","2025-12-08",{"date":74,"type":46},"2025-12-10",{"date":76,"type":22},"2026-01-01",{"date":78,"type":22},"2027-12-31",{"name":80,"class":52},"Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre",2,{"id":83,"slug":84,"hasResults":11,"nctId":85,"briefTitle":86,"officialTitle":87,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":88,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":60,"minAge":89,"maxAge":90,"enrollmentInfo":91,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":93,"phases":4,"briefSummary":94,"conditions":95,"keywords":99,"overallStatus":101,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":102,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":103,"startDateStruct":105,"completionDateStruct":107,"leadSponsor":109,"locationsCount":53},"100527865","school-violence-exposure-as-an-adverse-childhood-experience-100527865","NCT06153316","School Violence Exposure as an Adverse Childhood Experience","School Violence Exposure as an Adverse Childhood Experience: a Nationwide Study of K- 12 School Responses to Violence and Their Impact on Youth Mental Health and Educational Outcomes","School-level Inclusion criteria:\n\nFor a school to be considered for participation, it should meet all the following criteria:\n\n1. The school must consent to participate in the study.\n2. Gun shooting incident\n\n   * For exposure schools: Must have experienced a gun shooting incident between 1\u002F1\u002F2015-12\u002F31\u002F2022 .\n   * For non-exposure schools: there should not have been a gun shooting incident between 1\u002F1\u002F2011-12\u002F31\u002F2022.\n3. Must have the student population of interest that is middle through grade 12, and-\n\n   * For exposure schools: At least one grade that experienced the shooting should still be studying at the school.\n   * For non-exposure schools: must have the same grade levels as the pair-matched case school and none of them should have been exposed to any gun shooting incident at that school.\n4. Must be a public school.\n\n   * All non-public schools (e.g., private, charter, parochial schools) and schools outside of the middle-12 range (e.g. daycares, only elementary, preschools, and universities) are not eligible for the study.\n\nIndividual-level Inclusion Criteria:\n\nPrincipals: Must be the current Principal of the participating school. Teachers: Must be a current teacher at the participating school. Students: Must be a current student at the participating school studying in grades 6-12.","11 Years","65 Years",{"count":92,"type":22},2500,"OBSERVATIONAL","This study hypothesize that school safety strategies may contribute to poor mental health and distress among various school populations and proposes the following research questions to be answered through this study:\n\n1. Is there a significant difference in the prevalence of mental health outcomes, perceived school safety, and academic engagement between early adolescent and adolescent students (grades 6 - 12) at schools that have experienced a school shooting and those that have not?\n2. Are existing interventions to promote school safety and security associated with poor mental health outcomes among students and school staff?\n3. Does the strength of this association between school safety interventions and mental health outcomes differ among students and teachers in those schools who have experienced a school shooting versus among students and teachers in those schools who never experienced a school shooting? And, among our sample of students, are these associations moderated by their ACE history? Participants will be asked to self-report data on their mental health and wellness, and perceived school safety through a survey.\n\nResearchers will compare the surveys from the participants from exposure schools (those who experienced a gun shooting incident) with surveys from the participants from non-exposure schools (those who have not experienced a gun shooting incident)",[29,96,97,98],"Adverse Childhood Experiences","Perceived School Safety","Educational Outcomes",[100],"School gun violence, School safety, mental health, ACEs","RECRUITING","2025-09-09",{"date":104,"type":46},"2025-09-16",{"date":106,"type":46},"2024-04-26",{"date":108,"type":22},"2025-12",{"name":110,"class":52},"Teachers College, Columbia University",{"id":112,"slug":113,"hasResults":11,"nctId":114,"briefTitle":115,"officialTitle":116,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":117,"healthyVolunteers":16,"sex":60,"minAge":61,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":118,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":120,"briefSummary":121,"conditions":122,"keywords":123,"overallStatus":42,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":128,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":129,"startDateStruct":131,"completionDateStruct":133,"leadSponsor":135,"locationsCount":137},"100602658","the-family-foundations-trial-100602658","NCT07126379","The Family Foundations Trial","The Family Foundations Trial: Promoting Family Wellbeing in Regional and Rural Communities Affected by Environmental Threats","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Family must be living in a regional or rural area\n* Family must have at least one child aged 0-12 years\n* At least 2 parents\u002Fcaregivers in the family must agree to participate in evaluation, and FF, if allocated. (Please note: A family member or someone else involved in raising children in the family may participate in FF. Families are not required to be in a couple relationship or living together).\n* At least one parent\u002Fcaregiver within the family reports mental health difficulties and\u002For two or more risk factors for poor mental health in the last 5 years including (a) experienced a recent or past natural disaster (i.e., drought, flood, fire, severe storm), (b) living with the threat of a natural disaster (i.e., bushfires during summer), (c) self-reported history of poor mental health, (d) financial hardship, (e) young parental age at time of first baby (18-25yrs), (f) relationship conflict, or (g) social isolation.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* At least one parent has a severe mental health disorder - self reported psychosis, substance use dependency, prescribed anti-psychotic medication that may interfere with their ability to take part in the trial and in the FF intervention if allocated. They may require more intensive mental health interventions and treatment than what can be provided by the trial interventions.\n* The family has an overt indicator of family violence - self-reported intervention order or court case for family violence.\n* The family has child protection service involvement - self-reported.",{"count":119,"type":22},472,[25],"In this project, researchers are exploring different ways to support the wellbeing and relationships of families with young children (0-12 years). People in regional and rural communities often live with the threat of bushfires, floods, drought, severe storms, and other extreme weather events. Some families have been affected by these disasters and are still trying to recover.\n\nResearchers will test two different ways of supporting families in regional and rural Victoria:\n\nFamily Foundations (FF): An 8-session program to promote parent wellbeing, parenting partnerships, and communication. All parents\u002Fcaregivers\u002Fparenting partners in the family participate in sessions delivered by a health professional online.\n\nFamily Life Check-In: A brief 30-minute telephone call with a health professional to discuss family wellbeing and relationships, and identify any supports needed.\n\nThe goal of this trial is to learn whether FF works to reduce mental health difficulties for regional and rural families. The main question it aims to answer is:\n\nCompared to Family Life Check-In, does Family Foundations lead to fewer mental health difficulties?\n\nParticipants will:\n\nComplete an online survey before randomisation, after they have received FF or Family Life Check-In, and six months after starting the project.\n\nTake part in either Family Foundations or Family Life Check-In.",[29],[124,125,126,127],"mental health","parent mental health","coparenting","rural health","2025-08-13",{"date":130,"type":46},"2025-08-17",{"date":132,"type":22},"2025-10-01",{"date":134,"type":22},"2027-08-01",{"name":136,"class":52},"Deakin University",6]