Grand Canyon University · College of Nursing and Health Care Professions
Community Teaching Work Plan Proposal: Adolescent Anxiety and Depression Screening in a Title I District
NRS-428VN Concepts in Community and Public Health, Topic 2 Benchmark. Planning document that precedes the Topic 5 presentation.
Assessment Context
NRS-428VN asks each candidate to design an educational series for a named community, and the Benchmark Community Teaching Work Plan Proposal at Grand Canyon University functions as the planning document that precedes delivery in Topic 5. Four approved foci structure the choice: primary prevention and health promotion, secondary prevention and screening for a vulnerable population, bioterrorism and disaster response, or environmental health. The 2026 study period foregrounds the screening option because adolescents in high-poverty districts carry the heaviest unmet need and the shortest route to care. Candidates who choose screening must still defend it with local epidemiology rather than national averages. Grading rests on 100 points, the proposal carries competency 4.2 on therapeutic communication, and the completed work feeds straight into the presentation assessed five weeks later.
Scope matters more than ambition here. A proposal that tries to cover a whole state will fail the rubric line on population specificity, while a proposal anchored to one district, one grade band, and one screening window can demonstrate every required element. Candidates should name the district, the school, the grade level, and the estimated number of students reached. Local figures may come from a county community health needs assessment, a district wellness report, or a state school health profile. Where local data are unavailable, the honest move is to state the gap and substitute the closest county-level estimate, not to invent numbers.
Learning Outcomes
- Select one approved teaching focus and justify the prevention level against a named population’s measured need.
- Interpret county, district, and national surveillance data without conflating their different denominators.
- Write measurable objectives that map to a teaching method, a material, and an evaluation item.
- Design an evaluation plan with a stated instrument, timing, and success threshold.
- Incorporate feedback from a community or public health provider into the final revision.
Task Requirements
Selecting the Teaching Focus
Choose one of the four approved foci and state it in a single declarative sentence at the end of the introduction. Ambiguity about the prevention level costs marks, because primary prevention, secondary prevention, and tertiary management demand different objectives and different evaluation items. A screening plan that drifts into treatment education ends up defending two foci and satisfying neither. Write the focus sentence first, then check every later section against it.
Defending the Need With Local Data
Roughly 500 words belong to the epidemiological rationale, and the argument should move from population to need to gap. Population means who lives there: age structure, poverty rate, insurance coverage, language mix. Need means what the surveillance shows, quoted with the year and the source. Gap means the distance between need and the service actually available, expressed in concrete terms such as students per counselor or median wait for an intake appointment. Two credible sources are the minimum, and at least one should be local or county-level. One comparison does more work than five statistics, so interpret the data rather than listing it.
Designing the Teaching Plan
Objectives carry the plan, so write three to five of them with observable verbs and a stated condition. Content follows the objectives rather than the presenter’s interests: two or three teaching points per objective, no more. Specify the delivery method, the materials, the time allocation, and the setting. A ninety-minute advisory block is realistic for a high school; a two-hour evening session is not, unless the proposal explains how students will attend. Fit matters to examiners, and a plan built around the audience’s literacy level, language, and schedule reads as professional rather than aspirational.
Building the Evaluation and Feedback Loop
Evaluation needs two layers: whether the session ran as designed and whether it changed anything. A process measure might be attendance and exit-ticket completion; an outcome measure might be the number of students who could name two symptoms and one help-seeking route, or the referral count logged in the week that followed. State the instrument, the timing, and the threshold that counts as success. Then review the proposal with a community health or public health provider, record the strengths and opportunities that provider identified, and show at least one specific revision made in response. Provider feedback summarized as gratitude earns partial credit; feedback quoted and acted upon earns full credit.
Required Structure of the Proposal
- Title page in APA 7 format, with course number, class code, instructor, and date.
- Introduction ending in a single focus statement, 200 to 250 words.
- Epidemiological rationale for the population, roughly 500 words, with two or more sources.
- Teaching plan: goal, measurable objectives, content outline, methods, materials, timeline, and setting.
- Evaluation plan naming the instrument, the timing, and the success threshold.
- Provider feedback summary with strengths, opportunities, and the revision made in response.
- Conclusion returning to the focus statement without introducing new evidence.
- Reference list in APA 7, four scholarly sources or more, none older than five years unless it is a seminal instrument paper.
An abstract is not required. Submit through LopesWrite and keep the similarity score under the program threshold before the deadline, since resubmission after the due date incurs the late penalty regardless of the score.
Marking Rubric
Content criteria carry 80 points, organization carries 10, and format carries 10. Level descriptors below map to the 0, 80, 88, 92, and 100 bands used across the college.
| Criterion | Unsatisfactory 0 | Less Than Satisfactory 80 | Satisfactory 88 | Good 92 | Excellent 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning and Topic Selection20 points | No focus named, or the topic falls outside the four approved foci. | Approved focus is named, but population, setting, or prevention level stays vague. | Focus is named with a population and a setting, and the prevention level is stated. | Focus is defended in two or three sentences that link prevention level to population. | Focus is bounded by district, grade band, and screening window, and justified against measured need. |
| Epidemiological Rationale25 points | No data offered, or figures appear without attribution. | National statistics are quoted without any link to the local population. | Two credible sources support the need, at least one of them local or county-level. | Data are interpreted rather than listed, with one comparison showing why the group is vulnerable. | Local and national data are triangulated, trend direction is read correctly, and the service gap is quantified. |
| Teaching Plan Design25 points | No objectives, content outline, or delivery method appears. | Objectives exist but cannot be measured, and the content outline is thin. | Three to five measurable objectives match the content, and method and timeline are described. | Objectives use observable verbs and align with method, materials, and audience literacy. | Every objective maps to a strategy and an assessment item, and two delivery barriers carry a named response. |
| Evaluation and Provider Feedback10 points | No evaluation method and no documented provider contact. | Evaluation stops at a satisfaction survey, and feedback is mentioned without content. | Evaluation includes a knowledge or behavior measure, and feedback is summarized with one action taken. | Evaluation combines process and outcome measures, and feedback separates strengths from opportunities. | Evaluation names instrument, timing, and threshold, and quoted feedback ties to a specific revision. |
| Organization and Effectiveness10 points | Prose is disorganized and a reader cannot follow the plan. | Section order is confusing and paragraphs lack topic sentences. | Sections follow the required order and the argument stays clear. | Transitions carry the argument and headings mirror the required structure. | The document reads as a working plan, with each section setting up the next in a professional register. |
| APA Format and Documentation10 points | No reference list, or sources cannot be verified. | Multiple APA errors in citations, headings, or the reference list. | Errors are minor and do not impede locating a source. | Citations, headings, and references follow APA 7 with one or two slips. | Format is clean, in-text citations match the reference list exactly, and LopesWrite shows no unattributed overlap. |
Sample Answer Writing Help
The two paragraphs below show the register, citation density, and data handling examiners reward. District figures serve as placeholders; replace them with the candidate’s own local data before submission.
Follow-Up Reading
Beyond the Screening Percentage
Headline percentages hide the part examiners examine. The same surveillance series shows persistent sadness falling from 42 percent in 2021 to 33 percent in 2025, with suicidal ideation dropping from 20 percent to 14 percent across the same interval (CDC, 2026). National improvement does not guarantee local improvement, and averaging conceals exactly the variation a community assessment exists to expose. Three data moves separate a working rationale from a decorative one:
- Compare the district’s referral rate against the county screening yield and report both numbers side by side.
- Convert the counselor ratio into students per counselor hour each week, which makes the capacity gap concrete.
- State the screening window and the expected number of students flagged at the published base rate.
Trend direction, capacity, and expected yield together justify a teaching plan in a way a single statistic cannot.
Do Screeners Overload School Nurses?
Concern about burden is legitimate, and the evidence does not wave it away. Peterson and Villarreal (2024) treat staff time, consent logistics, and follow-up capacity as the conditions that decide whether screening produces usable results rather than paperwork. Yield estimates shape the workload forecast: a meta-analysis of multiple-gate screening research found wide variation in the proportion of students identified at each gate, so no district can assume a fixed referral load (Villarreal et al., 2022). Sequencing reduces strain in three practical ways. Screen one grade band at a time instead of the whole building. Pair the instrument with a same-week triage block so flagged students are seen before the data go stale. Train two staff members on the referral pathway so the process survives an absence. Nurses who bring an administrator a defensible workload estimate tend to secure support, while nurses who bring only enthusiasm rarely do.
Where Referral Pathways Fail
Identification without consent and follow-up creates legal and ethical exposure. Peterson and Villarreal (2024) argue that school screening programs must settle parental permission, student assent, data storage, and the boundary between educational and clinical records before the first administration. Their commentary is direct about the risk: a program that finds need and cannot serve it may leave students worse off than a program that never screened. Confidentiality deserves particular care in small districts, where a counselor’s doorway is visible from the main hallway and a pulled student becomes news by lunch. Written protocols should specify who sees raw scores, how long the record is retained, and what happens when a student declines to participate. One meeting with district counsel and the receiving clinical partner settles most of this before it becomes a complaint.
What Earns Full Marks
Evidence discipline drives the score far more than writing polish. Candidates who bound the population, triangulate local and national data, and map every objective to a measurement method land in the excellent band, while graceful prose built on national statistics alone stalls near satisfactory. The rubric rewards sequence, so the argument should travel from need to objective to method to evaluation without detours. Provider feedback deserves more space than most submissions give it, since one quoted suggestion and the revision it produced demonstrate collaboration better than a paragraph of thanks. Formatting is the cheapest place to recover points, and the reference list is where formatting errors cluster. Start with district data, draft the objectives before the content outline, and let the provider conversation reshape the final draft.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). Youth health in focus: Mental health and suicide risk. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs/youth-health-in-focus/mental-health.html
Hoover, S., & Bostic, J. (2021). Schools as a vital component of the child and adolescent mental health system. Psychiatric Services, 72(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900575
Peterson, L. S., & Villarreal, V. (2024). Ethical considerations in school-based mental health screening and service provision: A commentary. Journal of School Health, 94(12), 1196–1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13520
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2022a). Screening for anxiety in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 328(14), 1438–1444. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.16936
US Preventive Services Task Force. (2022b). Screening for depression and suicide risk in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 328(15), 1534–1542. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.16946
Villarreal, V., Castro-Villarreal, F., Peterson, L. S., Bear, M., Cortes, D. M., & Escobedo, T. (2022). Meta-analysis of proportions of students screened and identified in mental health multiple-gate screening research. School Psychology Review, 52(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2022.2106155
=====================================================
Title Page
Community Teaching Work Plan Proposal: Adolescent Anxiety and Depression Screening at Maryvale High School
Student Name
College of Nursing and Health Care Professions, Grand Canyon University
NRS-428VN: Concepts in Community and Public Health
Class: NRS-428VN-O500
Instructor: [Instructor Name]
Due Date: [Submission Date]
Community Teaching Work Plan Proposal: Adolescent Anxiety and Depression Screening at Maryvale High School
Introduction
Adolescent anxiety and depression present significant public health concerns because emotional distress can affect school attendance, academic performance, relationships, and personal safety. High school students may experience persistent worry, sadness, sleep disturbances, and difficulty concentrating without recognizing these experiences as possible signs of mental health problems. Access to early screening remains important, particularly in communities where financial pressures and limited access to mental health services may delay professional assessment. Maryvale High School in Phoenix, Arizona, provides an appropriate setting for a community teaching initiative because the Arizona Department of Education identifies it as eligible for Title I funding. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) records show that the school enrolled 2,532 students during the 2024–2025 academic year, including 618 ninth-grade students (Arizona Department of Education, 2025; NCES, 2025).
A school-based program can reach adolescents within their usual learning environment and introduce them to reliable ways of recognizing distress and accessing support. However, screening requires more than distributing questionnaires. Students need appropriate consent, confidential administration, professional interpretation, and access to follow-up services. The proposed intervention therefore combines mental health education with a structured screening and referral process. The selected teaching focus is secondary prevention through anxiety and depression screening among ninth-grade students at Maryvale High School during a school-based screening period in February 2027.
Epidemiological Rationale
Maryvale High School serves a population that warrants particular attention to the accessibility of adolescent mental health services. The school’s Title I eligibility identifies it as part of a federally supported program directed towards schools serving communities with greater economic need. However, Title I status does not establish that every student experiences financial hardship or has limited access to healthcare. A useful community assessment must therefore consider the wider socioeconomic conditions alongside evidence of mental health needs. The 2024 Maricopa County Community Health Needs Assessment provides relevant local information about the experiences of younger residents.
The county’s 2023 community survey found that approximately four in ten respondents aged 12–18 identified anxiety as a health issue that had a significant impact on themselves or people they lived with or cared for. The survey also found that anxiety and depression appeared more frequently among younger respondents than older age groups (Maricopa County Department of Public Health, 2024). These findings indicate that mental health concerns affect the community’s adolescent population. However, the survey measured perceived health issues rather than clinically diagnosed anxiety or depression. Its findings should therefore inform local planning without serving as a direct estimate of disorder prevalence among Maryvale students.
Access to appropriate services presents another concern. The Maricopa County Human Services Department (2024) identified the need for free or low-cost community mental health services, particularly for children, young people, and lower-income households. Financial barriers can prevent families from obtaining timely assessments, even when adolescents recognize that they need help. The county assessment consequently supports the case for closer cooperation between schools and community health providers. School-based screening may reduce some access barriers because students can receive initial education and identification support without arranging a separate healthcare visit.
National findings reinforce the local concerns. Kiplagat et al. (2026), using the 2025 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, reported that 33.3% of American high school students experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness. Among students reporting these feelings, 28.8% reported an unmet need for counselling or therapy, while 29.6% received counselling or therapy. These findings indicate a substantial difference between reported emotional distress and access to support. The national figures cannot establish the prevalence of depression or anxiety at Maryvale, but they demonstrate why local schools need reliable identification and referral arrangements.
Available staffing figures also require consideration. NCES reported approximately 25,800 students and 92.5 guidance counsellor full-time equivalent positions across Phoenix Union High School District during 2024–2025. These figures produce an estimated district-wide ratio of approximately 279 students per guidance counsellor. The calculation does not establish Maryvale’s individual counselling workload, but it provides a useful capacity indicator. The American School Counselor Association (2026) recommends a ratio of 250 students per school counsellor and reported an Arizona statewide average of 570:1 for 2024–2025. Screening should therefore complement existing school support rather than assume unlimited professional availability.
Evidence-based recommendations support the proposed prevention level. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF, 2022a, 2022b) recommends anxiety screening for children and adolescents aged 8–18 and depression screening for adolescents aged 12–18. Sekhar et al. (2021) also found that universal depression screening in 14 American high schools increased the identification of depressive symptoms and treatment initiation compared with usual targeted referral practices. Together, these findings support a school-based approach for ninth graders. The local evidence establishes community concern, while national studies demonstrate the potential value of early identification. The service gap that this proposal addresses is the absence of publicly verified, Maryvale-specific data on screening coverage, referral completion, and waiting times. The school should establish those baseline figures before implementation.
Community Teaching Plan
Teaching Goal and Learning Objectives
The overall goal is to improve mental health awareness, early identification, and help-seeking among ninth-grade students at Maryvale High School. The proposed teaching population consists of the school’s 618 ninth-grade students, based on the latest available grade-level enrollment data. The February 8–19, 2027, implementation period will provide time for classroom education, voluntary screening, and referral coordination.
The learning objectives are as follows:
- Given common adolescent mental health scenarios, students will identify at least two symptoms associated with anxiety and two associated with depression.
- Following the educational session, students will explain the difference between a mental health screening result and a clinical diagnosis.
- Participating students will identify at least two appropriate sources of mental health assistance within the school or surrounding community.
- Students will demonstrate an appropriate help-seeking response through a short classroom scenario or role-play activity.
Teaching Content and Methods
The educational session will use a 90-minute advisory period. A school nurse will coordinate the teaching activities with a school counsellor or qualified mental health professional. The opening ten minutes will introduce the purpose of the session and establish ground rules for respectful discussion. A short presentation will then explain adolescent anxiety and depression, including changes in mood, persistent worry, withdrawal from social activities, sleep difficulties, and loss of interest in usual activities.
The next section will distinguish ordinary emotional reactions from symptoms that may require professional attention. Students will examine short case scenarios and discuss how anxiety or depression might affect school attendance, relationships, and learning. The instructor will explain that screening questionnaires help identify students who may need further assessment. They do not establish a diagnosis, and students should not use screening scores to label themselves or their classmates.
The proposed screening instruments are the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). The PHQ-9 assesses depressive symptoms, while the GAD-7 assesses anxiety symptoms. Romano et al. (2022) found that the GAD-7 demonstrated measurement consistency across sex and grade groups in a large adolescent school-based sample. Sekhar et al. (2021) also demonstrated the practical value of the PHQ-9 in a high-school screening programme. Qualified personnel will administer and interpret the instruments according to an approved clinical protocol.
The teaching session will include a practical exercise on help-seeking. Students will practise approaching a trusted adult and explaining that they need support with emotional difficulties. The school nurse will distribute a contact sheet containing school counselling information, community mental health services, and appropriate crisis resources. A short question-and-answer activity will address stigma and common misconceptions surrounding mental illness.
Teaching Materials, Setting, and Timeline
The school advisory classroom will serve as the main teaching setting, while a private school health office or designated confidential room will support screening and individual follow-up. Materials will include presentation slides, symptom identification cards, scenario worksheets, consent forms, screening questionnaires, and referral information sheets. Digital materials will use accessible language, and English and Spanish versions will be prepared following confirmation of family language preferences.
The proposed schedule is:
| Activity | Time allocation |
|---|---|
| Introduction and pre-session knowledge check | 10 minutes |
| Anxiety and depression symptoms | 15 minutes |
| Screening purpose, confidentiality, and limitations | 10 minutes |
| Case scenarios and group discussion | 15 minutes |
| Help-seeking practice and role-play | 15 minutes |
| Screening and private completion arrangements | 15 minutes |
| Questions and exit assessment | 10 minutes |
| Total | 90 minutes |
Classroom sessions will take place during the February 8–19, 2027, implementation period. Screening will proceed only after the school confirms parental consent, appropriate clinical staffing, secure record management, and referral availability. Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 15-117 and 36-2272 require parental consent for relevant school-based surveys and mental health screening involving minors. The programme will use written informed parental consent, provide the actual questionnaire information in advance, and allow at least seven days for the required consent process. Students aged 18 will provide their own consent where the applicable statute requires it (Arizona Legislature, 2026).
Addressing Delivery Barriers
Two potential barriers require attention. The first is limited parental consent or participation, particularly where families face language, transportation, or communication difficulties. The school will distribute consent information through its established parent communication channels and provide translated materials and opportunities for parents to ask questions. The second barrier concerns professional capacity after screening. A positive result requires appropriate review, and a student who expresses an immediate safety concern needs prompt clinical assessment.
The programme will therefore require a designated school mental health professional and a confirmed community referral partner before screening begins. Teachers will not receive individual screening scores, and classroom discussions will not require students to disclose personal experiences. Peterson and Villarreal (2024) emphasize that school screening must account for confidentiality, consent, and the capacity to provide services. Screening will be postponed if the school cannot arrange safe and timely follow-up. Student protection takes priority over reaching the entire planned cohort during the initial implementation period.
Evaluation Plan
The evaluation will measure both the delivery of the teaching session and its effect on student knowledge and access to support. A five-item knowledge questionnaire will assess students’ ability to recognize anxiety and depression symptoms, explain the purpose of screening, and identify appropriate help-seeking routes. Students will complete the questionnaire immediately before and after the teaching session. The programme will meet its learning target when at least 80% of participating students answer four or more questions correctly on the post-session assessment.
Process evaluation will record attendance, consent completion, screening participation, and exit questionnaire completion. The school nurse and designated mental health professional will maintain secure records of screening outcomes and referrals. The evaluation will also monitor whether the school completes clinical review within one school day for positive screening results. Any response indicating immediate safety concerns will receive same-day professional assessment under the district’s approved safety protocol. The PHQ-9 alone will not serve as a suicide-risk assessment; the school will use an appropriate validated suicide-risk screening process when indicated (Hua et al., 2024).
Referral outcomes will provide an additional measure of programme performance. The proposed targets are that at least 90% of students with positive screening results receive a documented clinical review within one school day and that at least 80% of students requiring non-emergency follow-up receive an offered referral appointment or documented referral option within five school days. The school will record whether families accept and complete referrals, while respecting confidentiality and consent requirements. These measures will help identify whether screening leads to appropriate support rather than simply generating additional records.
Provider Feedback and Proposal Revision
A formal consultation with a Maryvale school nurse, district mental health coordinator, or Maricopa County public health provider remains necessary before final submission. The materials supplied for this proposal do not document an actual provider interview, so no quotation or professional endorsement can be attributed to an individual at this stage. The consultation should assess the proposed consent process, staffing arrangements, confidentiality safeguards, and availability of referral services.
The provider’s feedback should identify at least one strength and one opportunity for improvement. A likely area for revision is the screening schedule, particularly if the school’s available mental health staff cannot review results from the full ninth-grade cohort within the proposed time. The final proposal should record the provider’s exact comments, consultation date, professional role, and the specific change made in response. The implementation plan should then reflect the school’s confirmed staffing and referral arrangements rather than assumed capacity.
Conclusion
Secondary prevention through adolescent anxiety and depression screening offers a suitable response to mental health concerns affecting students in Title I school communities. Evidence from Maricopa County and national surveillance supports the need for greater attention to early identification and access to care. Maryvale High School provides a defined setting and a measurable ninth-grade population for the proposed initiative. PHQ-9 and GAD-7 screening, combined with practical mental health education, can help students recognize symptoms and seek appropriate assistance. However, the programme must comply with Arizona consent requirements and secure professional follow-up before screening begins. Its success will depend on measurable improvements in student knowledge, timely clinical review, and access to appropriate referrals.
References
APA 7th edition
Arizona Department of Education. (2025). 2025–26 schools eligible for Title I programs. https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/2025/10/2025%20Title%20I%20School%20Eligibility.pdf
Arizona Legislature. (2026). Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-117: Surveys; pupil information; parental permission and informed consent. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/15/00117.htm
Arizona Legislature. (2026). Arizona Revised Statutes § 36-2272: Consent of parent required for mental health screening or treatment of minors. https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02272.htm
American School Counselor Association. (2026). School counselor roles and ratios. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/About-School-Counseling/School-Counselor-Roles-Ratios
Hua, L. L., Lee, J., Rahmandar, M. H., & Sigel, E. J. (2024). Suicide and suicide risk in adolescents. Pediatrics, 153(1), e2023064800. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2023-064800
Kiplagat, S. J., Verlenden, J. V., Petrosky, E., Gray, S. C., King, A., Rumph, J. T., Hertz, M. F., & Underwood, J. M. (2026). Unmet need for mental health services among high school students experiencing persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness: Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2025. MMWR Supplements, 75(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7501a4
Maricopa County Department of Public Health. (2024). Coordinated community health needs assessment: 2023 community survey report. https://mcid.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/96382/Maricopa-County-CHNA-Survey-Report
Maricopa County Human Services Department. (2024). Community Action Program community needs assessment report. https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/99386/CAP-Full-Needs-Assessment-Report-2024-Final
National Center for Education Statistics. (2025a). Maryvale High School: School details and enrollment characteristics. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?DistrictID=0406330&ID=040633000549&Search=1
National Center for Education Statistics. (2025b). Phoenix Union High School District: District directory and staffing information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?DistrictID=0406330&ID2=0406330&Search=2&details=1
Peterson, L. S., & Villarreal, V. (2024). Ethical considerations in school-based mental health screening and service provision: A commentary. Journal of School Health, 94(12), 1196–1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13520
Romano, I., Ferro, M. A., Patte, K. A., & Leatherdale, S. T. (2022). Measurement invariance of the GAD-7 and CESD-R-10 among adolescents in Canada. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 47(5), 585–594. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsab119
Sekhar, D. L., Schaefer, E. W., Waxmonsky, J. G., Walker-Harding, L. R., Pattison, K. L., Molinari, A., Rosen, P., & Kraschnewski, J. L. (2021). Screening in high schools to identify, evaluate, and lower depression among adolescents: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 4(11), e2131836. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.31836
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2022a). Screening for anxiety in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 328(14), 1438–1444. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.16936
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2022b). Screening for depression and suicide risk in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 328(15), 1534–1542. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.16946
The post Proposal on Adolescent Anxiety and Depression Screening appeared first on EssayBishops.