Search

Existing frameworks for developing public health interventions have limited guidance for researchers on how to work with stakeholders to co-produce context-specific interventions. To address this, a promising framework for the co-production of public health interventions was developed through a previous review of school-based co-production. The present study aimed to optimise this co-production framework through applying and testing it in real-world secondary school contexts. Within schools, Research Action Groups (RAGs) were established with multiple school stakeholders supported by an external facilitator to use school data to produce school-specific mental health and wellbeing interventions. A mixed method process evaluation of two contextually diverse case study secondary schools in the UK was used to optimise the co-production framework. The process evaluation sought the views of those involved (students, school staff, school Senior Management Team (SMT) members, and the external co-production facilitator/researcher) on the co-production functions they were involved in so they could be modified, if needed. Data collected for the process evaluation during co-production were a researcher diary (n = 45 entries), and observations of student photography (n = 21) and RAG meetings (n = 8). Post co-production, interviews, and surveys with RAG students (n = 18) and staff (n = 8), and two school-specific SMT focus groups (n = 10) were conducted. The study identified four recommendations to optimise and integrate co-production into real world practice. They include the need to: assess schools for their readiness to undertake co-production; more effectively communicate the necessity to have stakeholders from the whole system involved; work with SMTs throughout co-production functions; involve stakeholders outside the school to support producing solutions to change school mental health and wellbeing priorities. The framework is intended to be used by researchers to integrate stakeholders into a shared decision-making process to develop interventions that meet the needs and contexts of individual schools. It could be transferred to other settings to support the development of public health interventions for other health areas, and populations. Further evaluation to test its use in other settings is needed., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Teaching staff report poorer mental health and wellbeing than the general working population. Intervention to address this issue is imperative, as poor wellbeing is associated with burnout, presenteeism, and adverse student mental health outcomes. The Wellbeing in Secondary Education (WISE) intervention is a secondary school-based programme aimed at improving the mental health and wellbeing of teachers and students. There are three components: awareness-raising for staff; a peer support service delivered by staff trained in Mental Health First Aid (MHFA); and Schools and Colleges Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training for teachers. A cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluation was conducted with 25 secondary schools in the UK (2016-2018). The intervention was largely ineffective in improving teacher mental health and wellbeing. This paper reports process evaluation data on acceptability to help understand this outcome. It adopts a complex systems perspective, exploring how acceptability is a dynamic and contextually contingent concept. Data sources were as follows: interviews with funders (n = 3); interviews with MHFA trainers (n = 6); focus groups with peer supporters (n = 8); interviews with headteachers (n = 12); and focus groups with teachers trained in Schools and Colleges MHFA (n = 7). Results indicated that WISE intervention components were largely acceptable. Initially, the school system was responsive, as it had reached a 'tipping point' and was prepared to address teacher mental health. However, as the intervention interacted with the complexities of the school context, acceptability became more ambiguous. The intervention was seen to be largely inadequate in addressing the structural determinants of teacher mental health and wellbeing (e.g. complex student and staff needs, workload, and system culture). Future teacher mental health interventions need to focus on coupling skills training and support with whole school elements that tackle the systemic drivers of the problem., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Teachers are at heightened risk of poor mental health and well-being, which is likely to impact on the support they provide to students, and student outcomes. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial, to test whether an intervention to improve mental health support and training for high school teachers led to improved mental health and well-being for teachers and students, compared to usual practice. We also conducted a cost evaluation of the intervention., Methods and Findings: The intervention comprised (i) Mental Health First Aid training for teachers to support students; (ii) a mental health awareness session; and (iii) a confidential staff peer support service. In total 25 mainstream, non-fee-paying secondary schools stratified by geographical area and free school meal entitlement were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 12) or control group (n = 13) after collection of baseline measures. We analysed data using mixed-effects repeated measures models in the intention-to-treat population, adjusted for stratification variables, sex, and years of experience. The primary outcome was teacher well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). Secondary outcomes were teacher depression, absence, and presenteeism, and student well-being, mental health difficulties, attendance, and attainment. Follow-up was at months 12 (T1) and 24 (T2). We collected process data to test the logic model underpinning the intervention, to aid interpretation of the findings. A total of 1,722 teachers were included in the primary analysis. Teacher well-being did not differ between groups at T2 (intervention mean well-being score 47.5, control group mean well-being score 48.4, adjusted mean difference -0.90, 95% CI -2.07 to 0.27, p = 0.130). The only effect on secondary outcomes was higher teacher-reported absence among the intervention group at T2 (intervention group median number of days absent 0, control group median number of days absent 0, ratio of geometric means 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.09, p = 0.042). Process measures indicated little change in perceived mental health support, quality of relationships, and work-related stress. The average cost of the intervention was £9,103 per school. The study's main limitations were a lack of blinding of research participants and the self-report nature of the outcome measures., Conclusions: In this study, we observed no improvements to teacher or student mental health following the intervention, possibly due to a lack of impact on key drivers of poor mental health within the school environment. Future research should focus on structural and cultural changes to the school environment, which may be more effective at improving teacher and student mental health and well-being., Trial Registration: www.isrctn.com ISRCTN95909211., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Co-production affords an intervention's target population the opportunity to participate in intervention theory decision-making during the development process. This addresses the over-reliance on developing interventions through academic theories which can be devoid of contextual understanding and result in challenges to implementing school-based health programmes. There is an emergent empirical literature on co-producing school-based health interventions, but an understanding of appropriate theoretical types and processes and stakeholders' experiences is lacking. Through the conduct of a systematic review, this study seeks to understand the types and underlying theories and processes for co-production in school-based health interventions with students aged 11-16. A thematic synthesis explored stakeholders' experiences of the different types of co-production. A systematic search of five electronic bibliographic databases, citation tracking of included studies, and consultation with an expert international panel were employed. Of 27,433 unique papers, 30 papers representing 22 studies were retained to describe types, and 23 papers of 18 studies used to synthesise stakeholders' experiences. Three types were identified: external, individual-level, and system-level capacity-building. Whilst this review showed variability in co-production types, stakeholders involved and processes, shared functions were identified. Students', school staff, facilitators' and researchers' experiences in terms of acceptability, feasibility and undertaking decision-making are discussed. Recommendations for conceptualising and reporting co-production and process evaluations of co-produced school-based health interventions are highlighted.

Background: The evidence-base for whole school approaches aimed at improving student mental health and wellbeing remains limited. This may be due to a focus on developing and evaluating de-novo, research-led interventions, while neglecting the potential of local, contextually-relevant innovation that has demonstrated acceptability and feasibility. This study reports a novel approach to modelling and refining the programme theory of a whole-school restorative approach, alongside plans to scale up through a national educational infrastructure in order to support robust scientific evaluation., Methods: A pragmatic formative process evaluation was conducted of a routinized whole-school restorative approach aimed at improving student mental health and wellbeing in Wales., Results: The study reports the six phases of the pragmatic formative process evaluation. These are: 1) identification of innovative local practice; 2) scoping review of evidence-base to identify potential programme theory; outcomes; and contextual characteristics that influence implementation; 3) establishment of a Transdisciplinary Action Research (TDAR) group; 4) co-production and confirmation of an initial programme theory with stakeholders; 5) planning to optimise intervention delivery in local contexts; and 6) planning for feasibility and outcome evaluation. The phases of this model may be iterative and not necessarily sequential., Conclusions: Formative, pragmatic process evaluations can support researchers, policy-makers and practitioners in developing robust scientific evidence-bases for acceptable and feasible local innovations that do not already have a clear evidence base. The case of a whole-school restorative approach provides a case example of how such an evaluation may be undertaken.

Background: Improving children and young people's provision for mental health is a current health priority in England. Secondary school teachers have worse mental health outcomes than the general working population, which the Wellbeing in Secondary Education (WISE) cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to improve. The WISE intervention comprised a Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training package delivered to at least 16% of staff, a short mental health awareness session to all teachers and development of a staff peer support service. Twenty-five schools were randomised to intervention or control arms. This paper reports findings regarding the extent of uptake and fidelity of the intervention., Methods: Mixed methods data collection comprised researcher observations of training delivery, training participant evaluation forms, trainer and peer supporter interviews, peer supporter feedback meetings, logs of support provided, and teacher questionnaires. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively, while thematic analysis was applied to the qualitative data., Results: In the 12 schools assigned to the intervention arm, 113 (8.6%) staff completed the 2-day standard MHFA training course, and a further 146 (11.1%) staff completed the 1-day MHFA for schools and colleges training. In seven (58.3%) schools, the required 8% of staff completed the MHFA training packages. A 1-h mental health awareness-raising session was attended by 666 (54.5%) staff. Delivery of the MHFA training package was achieved with high levels of fidelity and quality across schools. All schools set up the peer support service following training, with a majority adhering to most of the operational guidelines developed from the pilot study at the outset. Teachers reported limited use of the peer support service during follow-up. At the 1-year follow-up, only three (25.0%) schools indicated they had re-advertised the service and there was evidence of a reduction in support from senior leadership., Conclusion: The MHFA training package was delivered with reasonably high fidelity, and a staff peer support service was established with general, but not complete, adherence to guidelines. In some schools, insufficient staff received MHFA training and levels of delivery of the peer support service compromised intervention dose and reach., Trial Registration: ISRCTN 95909211 . Registered on 15 January 2016.

Background: Evidence reports that schools influence children and young people's health behaviours across a range of outcomes. However there remains limited understanding of the mechanisms through which institutional features may structure self-harm and suicide. This paper reports on a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative research exploring how schools influence self-harm and suicide in students., Methods: Systematic searches were conducted of nineteen databases from inception to June 2015. English language, primary research studies, utilising any qualitative research design to report on the influence of primary or secondary educational settings (or international equivalents) on children and young people's self-harm and suicide were included. Two reviewers independently appraised studies against the inclusion criteria, assessed quality, and abstracted data. Data synthesis was conducted in adherence with Noblit and Hare's meta-ethnographic approach. Of 6744 unique articles identified, six articles reporting on five studies were included in the meta-ethnography., Results: Five meta-themes emerged from the studies. First, self-harm is often rendered invisible within educational settings, meaning it is not prioritised within the curriculum despite students' expressed need. Second, where self-harm transgresses institutional rules it may be treated as 'bad behaviour', meaning adequate support is denied. Third, schools' informal management strategy of escalating incidents of self-harm to external 'experts' serves to contribute to non-help seeking behaviour amongst students who desire confidential support from teachers. Fourth, anxiety and stress associated with school performance may escalate self-harm and suicide. Fifth, bullying within the school context can contribute to self-harm, whilst some young people may engage in these practices as initiation into a social group., Conclusions: Schools may influence children and young people's self-harm, although evidence of their impact on suicide remains limited. Prevention and intervention needs to acknowledge and accommodate these institutional-level factors. Studies included in this review are limited by their lack of conceptual richness, restricting the process of interpretative synthesis. Further qualitative research should focus on the continued development of theoretical and empirical insight into the relationship between institutional features and students' self-harm and suicide.

Sporadic and inconsistent implementation remains a significant challenge for social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions. This may be partly explained by the dearth of flexible, causative models that capture the multifarious determinants of implementation practices within complex systems. This paper draws upon Rogers (2003) Diffusion of Innovations Theory to explain the adoption, implementation and discontinuance of a SEL intervention. A pragmatic, formative process evaluation was conducted in alignment with phase 1 of the UK Medical Research Council's framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions. Employing case-study methodology, qualitative data were generated with four socio-economically and academically contrasting secondary schools in Wales implementing the Student Assistance Programme. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 programme stakeholders. Data suggested that variation in implementation activity could be largely attributed to four key intervention reinvention points, which contributed to the transformation of the programme as it interacted with contextual features and individual needs. These reinvention points comprise the following: intervention training, which captures the process through which adopters acquire knowledge about a programme and delivery expertise; intervention assessment, which reflects adopters' evaluation of an intervention in relation to contextual needs; intervention clarification, which comprises the cascading of knowledge through an organisation in order to secure support in delivery; and intervention responsibility, which refers to the process of assigning accountability for sustainable delivery. Taken together, these points identify opportunities to predict and intervene with potential implementation problems. Further research would benefit from exploring additional reinvention activity.

Objective: The utilisation of evidence-based health interventions remains a challenge in educational settings. Although driving forward the scientific evidence-base may contribute to the diffusion of such approaches, abstract notions of population-level impact may not be seen as priorities in local. This paper considers the alternative forms of evidence that inform schools’ decision-making in relation to the adoption and implementation of health programmes. Design: Pragmatic formative process evaluation of a non-evidence-based social and emotional learning intervention, the Student Assistance Program, was conducted. Case-study methodology was used. Setting: Cases comprised four socio-economically contrasting secondary schools (free school meal eligibility ranging from 11.3% to 36%). Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 programme stakeholders. Results: The results explore (a) how school staff acquired belief in the merit of the Student Assistance Program through an intervention training course; (b) how experiential evidence gained in this course is used in the effort to secure intervention adoption; and (c) how intervention implementation may be limited by the lack of opportunities to develop experiential evidence within the educational setting. Conclusion: Alternative forms of evidence, specifically experiential evidence, are of importance in the diffusion of interventions within educational settings. Evidence-based approaches need to further acknowledge and accommodate these alternative forms of understanding to enhance their uptake and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Factors within the school environment may impact young people's mental health and wellbeing. The aim of this study was to understand the association between teacher and student mental health and wellbeing. Further, it seeked to identify possible explanations by examining whether the strength of any association is weakened once quality of teacher-student relationships, teacher presenteeism and absence are considered.Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected from 3216 year 8 (aged 12-13 years) students and from 1182 teachers in 25 secondary schools in England and Wales. The association between teacher wellbeing (measured by Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS)) with student wellbeing (WEMWBS) and with student psychological distress (Total Difficulties Score (TDS)) was assessed using Random Effects Mixed Models. Analyses were repeated using teacher depression (measured by Patient Health Questionnaire) as the explanatory variable.Results: Better teacher wellbeing was associated with i) better student wellbeing (standardised effect = 0·07, 95% CI = 0·02 to 0·12) and ii) lower student psychological distress (standardised effect = -0·10, 95% CI = -0·16 to -0·04). Teacher presenteeism and the quality of the teacher-student relationship appeared to be on the pathway of these relationships. Higher levels of teacher depressive symptoms were associated with poorer student wellbeing and psychological distress (standardised effect = -0·06, 95% CI = -0·11 to -0·01 & 0·09, 95% CI = 0·03 to 0·15). This association did not withstand adjustment for teacher presenteeism.Limitations: Cross sectional in design so unable to establish temporal associations.Conclusions: Associations were found between teacher wellbeing and student wellbeing and psychological distress. There were also an association between teacher depression and student wellbeing. Both may be partially explained by teacher presenteeism and quality of teacher-student relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]