Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33461528›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Developing a whole-school mental health and wellbeing intervention through pragmatic formative process evaluation: a case-study of innovative local practice within The School Health Research network.

Nina Gobat, Hannah Littlecott, Andy Williams, Kirsten McEwan, Helen Stanton, Michael Robling, Stephen Rollnick, Simon Murphy, Rhiannon Evans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nina GobatNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. nina.gobat@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1558-557X
Hannah LittlecottSchool of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Andy Williams, Independent Consultant, UK.
Kirsten McEwanHealth and Social Care, University of Derby, Derby, UK.
Helen StantonSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Michael RoblingSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Stephen Rollnick, Independent Consultant, UK.
Simon MurphySchool of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Rhiannon EvansSchool of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UKMedical Research Council MR/K023233/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 510564Wellcome Trust WT087640MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsA pragmatic formative process evaluation was conducted of a routinized whole-school restorative approach aimed at improving student mental health and wellbeing in Wales.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsFormative, 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.

Indexed as

Mental HealthSchoolsEducational StatusHumansStudentsWalesIntervention developmentMental healthMethodologyProcess evaluationRestorative approachSchools-based intervention

Identifiers

PMID33461528
PMCPMC7814700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.