ArticleBMJ mental health2026
Health economics analysis of restrictive school smartphone policies in secondary schools in England (SMART Schools).
Article in BMJ mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany countries have introduced restrictive smartphone policies in schools, aiming to improve adolescent health and educational outcomes. However, whether these policies represent value for money to schools remains unclear.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to estimate the costs and quality of life and mental well-being outcomes associated with restrictive and permissive phone policies in secondary schools in England, and conduct an economic evaluation to determine whether restrictive phone policies are cost effective for schools.
methodsA cost-utility analysis was conducted as part of a cross-sectional study on school smartphone policies in England (SMART Schools), comparing schools with restrictive (recreational phone use not permitted) and permissive (recreational phone use permitted) policies. Outcomes were valued using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and mental well-being adjusted life years (MWALYs). Costs were estimated from the school's perspective and comprised staff time spent on policy implementation. Mixed effects and linear regression models were used to estimate incremental differences in outcomes and per pupil costs.
findings815 pupils (aged 12-15) from 20 schools (13 restrictive, 7 permissive) were included in a complete case analysis. Differences between restrictive and permissive schools in incremental QALYs (0.009, 95% CI -0.014 to 0.032) and MWALYs (-0.004, 95% CI -0.044 to 0.036) were minimal. Time implementing and enforcing policies was equivalent to 3.1 FTE staff in restrictive and 3.3 FTE staff in permissive schools. The incremental difference in per pupil school year cost was -£94 (95% CI -£229 to £41). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated a 90% probability of restrictive policies being cost effective at a threshold of £20 000 and £30 000 per QALY.
conclusionsRestrictive school policies were associated with minimal differences in quality of life or mental well-being of pupils. However, they may offer some cost savings to schools by reducing staff time spent managing phone-related activities. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: School policies and practices require development to address the significant amount of time teachers spend managing phone use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.