摘要
Compared two recent, major reviews of primary prevention program evaluation research (i.e., Durlak and Wells' meta-analysis of 177 such studies and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report's summary of research studies of preventive intervention programs) with respect to specific studies included and input sources used. Whereas the IOM Report defined the goal of primary prevention as reducing the occurrence of new cases of mental disorder, Durlak and Wells' broader definition included both that goal and the promotion of psychological wellness. Overlap in journal sources used by the two reviews was modest and overlap in the actual primary prevention program evaluation studies included was minimal (≅7%). These findings bespeak somewhat different views of primary prevention and suggest a need for the complementary development of both the above approaches as alternatives, individually and collectively, to mental health's past established restorative ways.
