The Good Behaviour Game intervention to improve behavioural and other outcomes for children aged 7–8 years: a cluster RCT

N. Humphrey, Alexandra Hennessey, Patricio Troncoso, Margarita Panayiotou, Louise Black, Kimberly J. Petersen, L. Wo, Carla Mason, Emma Ashworth, Kirsty Frearson, J. Boehnke, R. Pockett, Julia Lowin, D. Foxcroft, M. Wigelsworth, Ann Lendrum
{"title":"The Good Behaviour Game intervention to improve behavioural and other outcomes for children aged 7–8 years: a cluster RCT","authors":"N. Humphrey, Alexandra Hennessey, Patricio Troncoso, Margarita Panayiotou, Louise Black, Kimberly J. Petersen, L. Wo, Carla Mason, Emma Ashworth, Kirsty Frearson, J. Boehnke, R. Pockett, Julia Lowin, D. Foxcroft, M. Wigelsworth, Ann Lendrum","doi":"10.3310/vkof7695","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Universal, school-based behaviour management interventions can produce meaningful improvements in children’s behaviour and other outcomes. However, the UK evidence base for these remains limited.\n \n \n \n The objective of this trial was to investigate the impact, value for money and longer-term outcomes of the Good Behaviour Game. Study hypotheses centred on immediate impact (hypothesis 1); subgroup effects (at-risk boys, hypothesis 2); implementation effects (dosage, hypothesis 3); maintenance/sleeper effects (12- and 24-month post-intervention follow-ups, hypothesis 4); the temporal association between mental health and academic attainment (hypothesis 5); and the health economic impact of the Good Behaviour Game (hypothesis 6).\n \n \n \n This was a two-group, parallel, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Primary schools (n = 77) were randomly assigned to implement the Good Behaviour Game for 2 years or continue their usual practice, after which there was a 2-year follow-up period.\n \n \n \n The trial was set in primary schools across 23 local authorities in England.\n \n \n \n Participants were children (n = 3084) aged 7–8 years attending participating schools.\n \n \n \n The Good Behaviour Game is a universal behaviour management intervention. Its core components are classroom rules, team membership, monitoring behaviour and positive reinforcement. It is played alongside a normal classroom activity for a set time, during which children work in teams to win the game to access the agreed rewards. The Good Behaviour Game is a manualised intervention delivered by teachers who receive initial training and ongoing coaching.\n \n \n \n The measures were conduct problems (primary outcome; teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); emotional symptoms (teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); psychological well-being, peer and social support, bullying (i.e. social acceptance) and school environment (self-report Kidscreen survey results); and school absence and exclusion from school (measured using National Pupil Database records). Measures of academic attainment (reading, standardised tests), disruptive behaviour, concentration problems and prosocial behaviour (Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation Checklist scores) were also collected during the 2-year follow-up period.\n \n \n \n There was no evidence that the Good Behaviour Game improved any outcomes (hypothesis 1). The only significant subgroup moderator effect identified was contrary to expectations: at-risk boys in Good Behaviour Game schools reported higher rates of bullying (hypothesis 2). The moderating effect of the amount of time spent playing the Good Behaviour Game was unclear; in the context of both moderate (≥ 1030 minutes over 2 years) and high (≥ 1348 minutes over 2 years) intervention compliance, there were significant reductions in children’s psychological well-being, but also significant reductions in their school absence (hypothesis 3). The only medium-term intervention effect was for peer and social support at 24 months, but this was in a negative direction (hypothesis 4). After disaggregating within- and between-individual effects, we found no temporal within-individual associations between children’s mental health and their academic attainment (hypothesis 5). Last, our cost–consequences analysis indicated that the Good Behaviour Game does not provide value for money (hypothesis 6).\n \n \n \n Limitations included the post-test-only design for several secondary outcomes; suboptimal implementation dosage (mitigated by complier-average causal effect estimation); and moderate child-level attrition (18.5% for the primary outcome analysis), particularly in the post-trial follow-up period (mitigated by the use of full information maximum likelihood procedures).\n \n \n \n Questions remain regarding programme differentiation (e.g. how distinct is the Good Behaviour Game from existing behaviour management practices, and does this makes a difference in terms of its impact?) and if the Good Behaviour Game is impactful when combined with a complementary preventative intervention (as has been the case in several earlier trials).\n \n \n \n The Good Behaviour Game cannot be recommended based on the findings reported here.\n \n \n \n This trial is registered as ISRCTN64152096.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32306,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/vkof7695","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Universal, school-based behaviour management interventions can produce meaningful improvements in children’s behaviour and other outcomes. However, the UK evidence base for these remains limited. The objective of this trial was to investigate the impact, value for money and longer-term outcomes of the Good Behaviour Game. Study hypotheses centred on immediate impact (hypothesis 1); subgroup effects (at-risk boys, hypothesis 2); implementation effects (dosage, hypothesis 3); maintenance/sleeper effects (12- and 24-month post-intervention follow-ups, hypothesis 4); the temporal association between mental health and academic attainment (hypothesis 5); and the health economic impact of the Good Behaviour Game (hypothesis 6). This was a two-group, parallel, cluster-randomised controlled trial. Primary schools (n = 77) were randomly assigned to implement the Good Behaviour Game for 2 years or continue their usual practice, after which there was a 2-year follow-up period. The trial was set in primary schools across 23 local authorities in England. Participants were children (n = 3084) aged 7–8 years attending participating schools. The Good Behaviour Game is a universal behaviour management intervention. Its core components are classroom rules, team membership, monitoring behaviour and positive reinforcement. It is played alongside a normal classroom activity for a set time, during which children work in teams to win the game to access the agreed rewards. The Good Behaviour Game is a manualised intervention delivered by teachers who receive initial training and ongoing coaching. The measures were conduct problems (primary outcome; teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); emotional symptoms (teacher-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores); psychological well-being, peer and social support, bullying (i.e. social acceptance) and school environment (self-report Kidscreen survey results); and school absence and exclusion from school (measured using National Pupil Database records). Measures of academic attainment (reading, standardised tests), disruptive behaviour, concentration problems and prosocial behaviour (Teacher Observation of Child Adaptation Checklist scores) were also collected during the 2-year follow-up period. There was no evidence that the Good Behaviour Game improved any outcomes (hypothesis 1). The only significant subgroup moderator effect identified was contrary to expectations: at-risk boys in Good Behaviour Game schools reported higher rates of bullying (hypothesis 2). The moderating effect of the amount of time spent playing the Good Behaviour Game was unclear; in the context of both moderate (≥ 1030 minutes over 2 years) and high (≥ 1348 minutes over 2 years) intervention compliance, there were significant reductions in children’s psychological well-being, but also significant reductions in their school absence (hypothesis 3). The only medium-term intervention effect was for peer and social support at 24 months, but this was in a negative direction (hypothesis 4). After disaggregating within- and between-individual effects, we found no temporal within-individual associations between children’s mental health and their academic attainment (hypothesis 5). Last, our cost–consequences analysis indicated that the Good Behaviour Game does not provide value for money (hypothesis 6). Limitations included the post-test-only design for several secondary outcomes; suboptimal implementation dosage (mitigated by complier-average causal effect estimation); and moderate child-level attrition (18.5% for the primary outcome analysis), particularly in the post-trial follow-up period (mitigated by the use of full information maximum likelihood procedures). Questions remain regarding programme differentiation (e.g. how distinct is the Good Behaviour Game from existing behaviour management practices, and does this makes a difference in terms of its impact?) and if the Good Behaviour Game is impactful when combined with a complementary preventative intervention (as has been the case in several earlier trials). The Good Behaviour Game cannot be recommended based on the findings reported here. This trial is registered as ISRCTN64152096. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
良好行为游戏干预改善7-8岁儿童的行为和其他结果:聚类随机对照试验
普遍的、以学校为基础的行为管理干预措施可以对儿童的行为和其他结果产生有意义的改善。然而,英国的证据基础仍然有限。本试验的目的是调查良好行为游戏的影响、性价比和长期结果。以直接影响为中心的研究假设(假设1);亚组效应(高危男孩,假设2);实施效果(剂量,假设3);维持/睡眠影响(干预后12个月和24个月的随访,假设4);心理健康与学业成绩之间的时间关联(假设5);以及良好行为游戏对健康经济的影响(假设6)。这是一项两组、平行、整群随机对照试验。小学(n = 77)被随机分配实施2年的良好行为游戏或继续他们的常规练习,之后有2年的随访期。该试验在英格兰23个地方当局的小学进行。参与者为儿童(n = 3084名),年龄7-8岁,就读于参与学校。良好行为游戏是一种普遍的行为管理干预措施。它的核心组成部分是课堂规则、团队成员、监督行为和积极强化。在规定的时间内,它与正常的课堂活动一起进行,在此期间,孩子们组队工作,赢得游戏,以获得商定的奖励。良好行为游戏是由接受初步培训和持续指导的教师进行的手工干预。测量指标是行为问题(主要结果;教师评定的优势和困难问卷得分);情绪症状(教师评定的优势和困难问卷得分);心理健康、同伴和社会支持、欺凌(即社会接受度)和学校环境(自我报告的Kidscreen调查结果);以及缺课和失学(使用国家学生数据库记录衡量)。在2年的随访期间,还收集了学业成绩(阅读、标准化测试)、破坏行为、注意力问题和亲社会行为(教师对儿童适应情况的观察检查表分数)的测量。没有证据表明良好行为游戏改善了任何结果(假设1)。发现的唯一显著的亚组调节效应与预期相反:良好行为游戏学校的高危男孩报告了更高的欺凌率(假设2)。玩“良好行为游戏”所花时间的调节作用尚不清楚;在中度(≥ 1030分钟超过2年)和高(≥ 2年内1348分钟)干预依从性,儿童的心理健康显著降低,但他们的缺课率也显著降低(假设3)。唯一的中期干预效果是在24个月时获得同伴和社会支持,但这是负面的(假设4)。在对个体内部和个体之间的影响进行分解后,我们发现儿童的心理健康与其学业成绩之间没有时间上的个体内部关联(假设5)。最后,我们的成本-后果分析表明,良好行为游戏不能提供物有所值的结果(假设6)。局限性包括仅对几个次要结果进行测试后设计;次优实施剂量(通过符合者平均因果效应估计减轻);以及中度儿童级流失(主要结果分析为18.5%),特别是在试验后随访期(通过使用全信息最大似然程序减轻)。关于计划差异化仍然存在问题(例如,良好行为游戏与现有行为管理实践的区别有多大,这在其影响方面有什么不同吗?),以及良好行为游戏在与补充预防干预相结合时是否有影响力(如前几次试验中的情况)。根据此处报告的调查结果,不能推荐“良好行为游戏”。本试验注册号为ISRCTN64152096。该项目由国家卫生与保健研究所公共卫生研究计划资助,并将在《公共卫生研究》上全文发表;第10卷第7期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
46 weeks
期刊最新文献
Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis of the Nose and Maxilla: A Rare Presentation. Behavioural intervention to reduce sexually transmitted infections in people aged 16–24 years in the UK: the safetxt RCT A group-based exercise and behavioural maintenance intervention for adults over 65 years with mobility limitations: the REACT RCT Feasibility of a theory-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour among contact centre staff: the SUH stepped-wedge cluster RCT A multicomponent structured health behaviour intervention to improve physical activity in long-distance HGV drivers: the SHIFT cluster RCT
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1