Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34762673›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2021

An intervention to improve teacher well-being support and training to support students in UK high schools (the WISE study): A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Judi Kidger, Nicholas Turner, William Hollingworth, Rhiannon Evans, Sarah Bell, Rowan Brockman, Lauren Copeland, Harriet Fisher, Sarah Harding, Jillian Powell and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Judi KidgerPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1054-6758
Nicholas TurnerPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1591-6997
William HollingworthPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0840-6254
Rhiannon EvansDECIPHer, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Sarah BellPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1181-9591
Rowan BrockmanPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Lauren CopelandDECIPHer, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0387-9607
Harriet FisherPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Sarah HardingSchool for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Jillian PowellSchool for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1538-9405
Ricardo ArayaCentre for Population Neuroscience and Precision Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rona CampbellPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Tamsin FordDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
David GunnellPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0829-6470
Simon MurphyDECIPHer, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3589-3681
Richard MorrisPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7240-4563
University of Bristol · GBCardiff University · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Department of Health 13/164/06Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTeachers 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

findingsThe 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.

conclusionsIn 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 registrationwww.isrctn.com ISRCTN95909211.

Indexed as

Mental HealthPsychosocial Support SystemsSchoolsCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareSchool TeachersStudentsTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34762673
PMCPMC8629387
OpenAlexW3212755682

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.