Nina Gobat1, Hannah Littlecott2, Andy Williams3, Kirsten McEwan4, Helen Stanton5, Michael Robling5, Stephen Rollnick3, Simon Murphy2, Rhiannon Evans2. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. nina.gobat@phc.ox.ac.uk. 2. School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 3. , Independent Consultant, UK. 4. Health and Social Care, University of Derby, Derby, UK. 5. School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Chris Bonell; Adam Fletcher; Natasha Fitzgerald-Yau; Daniel Hale; Elizabeth Allen; Diana Elbourne; Rebecca Jones; Lyndal Bond; Meg Wiggins; Alec Miners; Rosa Legood; Stephen Scott; Deborah Christie; Russell Viner Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Chris Bonell; Elizabeth Allen; Emily Warren; Jennifer McGowan; Leonardo Bevilacqua; Farah Jamal; Rosa Legood; Meg Wiggins; Charles Opondo; Anne Mathiot; Jo Sturgess; Adam Fletcher; Zia Sadique; Diana Elbourne; Deborah Christie; Lyndal Bond; Stephen Scott; Russell M Viner Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Graham F Moore; Rhiannon E Evans; Jemma Hawkins; Hannah Littlecott; G J Melendez-Torres; Chris Bonell; Simon Murphy Journal: Evaluation (Lond) Date: 2018-10-31