Developing 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
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.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
On 06 Dec, 2020
On 06 Dec, 2020
On 06 Dec, 2020
On 22 Nov, 2020
Received 12 Nov, 2020
On 27 Oct, 2020
On 27 Oct, 2020
Invitations sent on 27 Oct, 2020
On 26 Oct, 2020
On 26 Oct, 2020
On 04 Aug, 2020
Received 03 Aug, 2020
On 23 Jun, 2020
Invitations sent on 19 Jun, 2020
On 27 Apr, 2020
On 26 Apr, 2020
On 28 Dec, 2019
On 03 Feb, 2020
Received 31 Jan, 2020
Received 23 Jan, 2020
On 08 Jan, 2020
On 04 Jan, 2020
Invitations sent on 29 Dec, 2019
On 26 Nov, 2019
On 25 Nov, 2019
On 25 Nov, 2019
On 05 Nov, 2019
Developing 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
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
On 06 Dec, 2020
On 06 Dec, 2020
On 06 Dec, 2020
On 22 Nov, 2020
Received 12 Nov, 2020
On 27 Oct, 2020
On 27 Oct, 2020
Invitations sent on 27 Oct, 2020
On 26 Oct, 2020
On 26 Oct, 2020
On 04 Aug, 2020
Received 03 Aug, 2020
On 23 Jun, 2020
Invitations sent on 19 Jun, 2020
On 27 Apr, 2020
On 26 Apr, 2020
On 28 Dec, 2019
On 03 Feb, 2020
Received 31 Jan, 2020
Received 23 Jan, 2020
On 08 Jan, 2020
On 04 Jan, 2020
Invitations sent on 29 Dec, 2019
On 26 Nov, 2019
On 25 Nov, 2019
On 25 Nov, 2019
On 05 Nov, 2019
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.
Figure 1
Figure 2