Ruth Ponsford1, Rebecca Meiksin2, Sara Bragg3, Joanna Crichton4, Lucy Emmerson5, Tara Tancred6, Nerissa Tilouche2, Gemma Morgan4, Pete Gee7, Honor Young7, Alison Hadley8, Rona Campbell4, Chris Bonell2. 1. Department of Public Health, Environments & Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. Ruth.Ponsford@lshtm.ac.uk. 2. Department of Public Health, Environments & Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. 3. Centre for Sociology of Education and Equity, UCL Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK. 4. Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. 5. Sex Education Forum, National Children's Bureau, 23 Mentmore Terrace, London, E8 3PN, UK. 6. Centre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool, L3 5QA, UK. 7. School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD, UK. 8. Teenage Pregnancy Knowledge Exchange, University of Bedfordshire, University Square, Luton, LU1 3JU, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whole-school interventions represent promising approaches to promoting adolescent sexual health, but they have not been rigorously trialled in the UK and it is unclear if such interventions are feasible for delivery in English secondary schools. The importance of involving intended beneficiaries, implementers and other key stakeholders in the co-production of such complex interventions prior to costly implementation and evaluation studies is widely recognised. However, practical accounts of such processes remain scarce. We report on co-production with specialist providers, students, school staff, and other practice and policy professionals of two new whole-school sexual heath interventions for implementation in English secondary schools. METHODS: Formative qualitative inquiry involving 75 students aged 13-15 and 23 school staff. A group of young people trained to advise on public health research were consulted on three occasions. Twenty-three practitioners and policy-makers shared their views at a stakeholder event. Detailed written summaries of workshops and events were prepared and key themes identified to inform the design of each intervention. RESULTS: Data confirmed acceptability of addressing unintended teenage pregnancy, sexual health and dating and relationships violence via multi-component whole-school interventions and of curriculum delivery by teachers (providing appropriate teacher selection). The need to enable flexibility for the timetabling of lessons and mode of parent communication; ensure content reflected the reality of young people's lives; and develop prescriptive teaching materials and robust school engagement strategies to reflect shrinking capacity for schools to implement public-health interventions were also highlighted and informed intervention refinements. Our research further points to some of the challenges and tensions involved in co-production where stakeholder capacity may be limited or their input may conflict with the logic of interventions or what is practicable within the constraints of a trial. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-component, whole-school approaches to addressing sexual health that involve teacher delivered curriculum may be feasible for implementation in English secondary schools. They must be adaptable to individual school settings; involve careful teacher selection; limit additional burden on staff; and accurately reflect the realities of young people's lives. Co-production can reduce research waste and may be particularly useful for developing complex interventions, like whole-school sexual health interventions, that must be adaptable to varying institutional contexts and address needs that change rapidly. When co-producing, potential limitations in relation to the representativeness of participants, the 'depth' of engagement necessary as well as the burden on participants and how they will be recompensed must be carefully considered. Having well-defined, transparent procedures for incorporating stakeholder input from the outset are also essential. Formal feasibility testing of both co-produced interventions in English secondary schools via cluster RCT is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Project Respect: ISRCTN12524938 . Positive Choices: ISRCTN65324176.
BACKGROUND: Whole-school interventions represent promising approaches to promoting adolescent sexual health, but they have not been rigorously trialled in the UK and it is unclear if such interventions are feasible for delivery in English secondary schools. The importance of involving intended beneficiaries, implementers and other key stakeholders in the co-production of such complex interventions prior to costly implementation and evaluation studies is widely recognised. However, practical accounts of such processes remain scarce. We report on co-production with specialist providers, students, school staff, and other practice and policy professionals of two new whole-school sexual heath interventions for implementation in English secondary schools. METHODS: Formative qualitative inquiry involving 75 students aged 13-15 and 23 school staff. A group of young people trained to advise on public health research were consulted on three occasions. Twenty-three practitioners and policy-makers shared their views at a stakeholder event. Detailed written summaries of workshops and events were prepared and key themes identified to inform the design of each intervention. RESULTS: Data confirmed acceptability of addressing unintended teenage pregnancy, sexual health and dating and relationships violence via multi-component whole-school interventions and of curriculum delivery by teachers (providing appropriate teacher selection). The need to enable flexibility for the timetabling of lessons and mode of parent communication; ensure content reflected the reality of young people's lives; and develop prescriptive teaching materials and robust school engagement strategies to reflect shrinking capacity for schools to implement public-health interventions were also highlighted and informed intervention refinements. Our research further points to some of the challenges and tensions involved in co-production where stakeholder capacity may be limited or their input may conflict with the logic of interventions or what is practicable within the constraints of a trial. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-component, whole-school approaches to addressing sexual health that involve teacher delivered curriculum may be feasible for implementation in English secondary schools. They must be adaptable to individual school settings; involve careful teacher selection; limit additional burden on staff; and accurately reflect the realities of young people's lives. Co-production can reduce research waste and may be particularly useful for developing complex interventions, like whole-school sexual health interventions, that must be adaptable to varying institutional contexts and address needs that change rapidly. When co-producing, potential limitations in relation to the representativeness of participants, the 'depth' of engagement necessary as well as the burden on participants and how they will be recompensed must be carefully considered. Having well-defined, transparent procedures for incorporating stakeholder input from the outset are also essential. Formal feasibility testing of both co-produced interventions in English secondary schools via cluster RCT is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Project Respect: ISRCTN12524938 . Positive Choices: ISRCTN65324176.
Entities:
Keywords:
Co-production; Complex health interventions; Dating and relationships violence; Evaluation; Public health; Relationships and sex education; Sexual harassment; Sexual health; Teenage pregnancy
Authors: Kaye Wellings; Melissa J Palmer; Rebecca S Geary; Lorna J Gibson; Andrew Copas; Jessica Datta; Anna Glasier; Rachel H Scott; Catherine H Mercer; Bob Erens; Wendy Macdowall; Rebecca S French; Kyle Jones; Anne M Johnson; Clare Tanton; Paul Wilkinson Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Helen Smith; Luke Budworth; Chloe Grindey; Isabel Hague; Natalie Hamer; Roman Kislov; Peter van der Graaf; Joe Langley Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2022-04-02
Authors: R Ponsford; S Bragg; R Meiksin; N Tilouche; L Van Dyck; J Sturgess; E Allen; D Elbourne; A Hadley; M Lohan; C H Mercer; G J Melendez Torres; S Morris; H Young; R Campbell; C Bonell Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-03-04