See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
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.
Keywords
Process evaluation, intervention development, restorative approach, schools-based intervention, mental health, methodology
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Version 4
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Editor assigned
On 06 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Dec, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 22 Nov, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 12 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 27 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 26 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 04 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 03 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 23 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 19 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 28 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 03 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 31 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 23 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 08 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 26 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 25 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 25 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 05 Nov, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Version 4
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
No community comments so far
Editor assigned
On 06 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Dec, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 22 Nov, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 12 Nov, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 27 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Oct, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 27 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 26 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 04 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 03 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 23 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 19 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Apr, 2020
Editor invited
On 26 Apr, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 28 Dec, 2019
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 03 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 31 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 23 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 08 Jan, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 26 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 25 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 25 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 05 Nov, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
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
Loading...