针对小学学龄儿童福祉的社会和情感教育与发展干预:SEED 群组 RCT。

Sarah Blair, Marion Henderson, Alex McConnachie, Emma McIntosh, Susie Smillie, Kirsty Wetherall, Daniel Wight, Yiqiao Xin, Lyndal Bond, Lawrie Elliott, Sally Haw, Caroline Jackson, Kate Levin, Philip Wilson
{"title":"针对小学学龄儿童福祉的社会和情感教育与发展干预:SEED 群组 RCT。","authors":"Sarah Blair, Marion Henderson, Alex McConnachie, Emma McIntosh, Susie Smillie, Kirsty Wetherall, Daniel Wight, Yiqiao Xin, Lyndal Bond, Lawrie Elliott, Sally Haw, Caroline Jackson, Kate Levin, Philip Wilson","doi":"10.3310/LYRQ5047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stronger social and emotional well-being during primary school is positively associated with the health and educational outcomes of young people. However, there is little evidence on which programmes are the most effective for improving social and emotional well-being.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective was to rigorously evaluate the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) intervention process for improving pupils' social and emotional well-being.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a stratified cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. Thirty-eight primary schools were randomly assigned to the SEED intervention or to the control group. Hierarchical regression analysis allowing for clustering at school learning community level was conducted in R (statistical package).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The SEED intervention is a whole-school intervention; it involved all school staff and two cohorts of pupils, one starting at 4 or 5 years of age and the second starting at 8 or 9 years of age, across all 38 schools.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 2639 pupils in Scotland.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>The SEED intervention used an iterative process that involved three components to facilitate selection and implementation of school-based actions: (1) questionnaire completion, (2) benchmarked feedback to all staff and (3) reflective discussions (all staff and an educational psychologist).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>The primary outcome was pupils' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score when pupils were 4 years older than at baseline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome, pupils' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score at follow-up 3, showed improvements for intervention arm pupils, compared with those in the control arm [relative risk -1.30 (95% confidence interval -1.87 to -0.73), standardised effect size -0.27 (95% confidence interval -0.39 to -0.15)]. There was no evidence of intervention effects according to deprivation: the results were significant for both affluent and deprived pupils. Subgroup analysis showed that all effect sizes were larger for the older cohort, particularly boys [relative risk -2.36 (95% confidence interval -3.62 to -1.11), standardised effect size -0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.20)]. Although there was no statistically significant difference in incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year was high, at 88%. Particularly valued mechanisms of the SEED intervention were its provision of time to reflect on and discuss social and emotional well-being and its contribution to a culture of evaluating practice.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>It was a challenge to retain schools over five waves of data collection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This trial demonstrated that the SEED intervention is an acceptable, cost-effective way to modestly improve pupil well-being and improve school climate, particularly for older boys and those with greater levels of psychological difficulties. It was beneficial during the transition from primary to secondary school, but this diminished after 6 years. The SEED intervention can be implemented alongside existing systems for addressing pupil well-being and can be complementary to other interventions.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Assess whether or not the SEED intervention has a beneficial impact on academic attainment, is transferable to other countries and other organisational settings, would be strengthened by adding core training elements to the intervention process and is transferable to secondary schools. Understand the gender differences illustrated by the outcomes of this trial. Conduct further statistical research on how to handle missing data in longitudinal studies of complex social interventions.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as ISRCTN51707384.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 10/3006/13) and is published in full in <i>Public Health Research</i>; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":74615,"journal":{"name":"Public health research (Southampton, England)","volume":"12 6","pages":"1-173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Social and Emotional Education and Development intervention to address wellbeing in primary school age children: the SEED cluster RCT.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Blair, Marion Henderson, Alex McConnachie, Emma McIntosh, Susie Smillie, Kirsty Wetherall, Daniel Wight, Yiqiao Xin, Lyndal Bond, Lawrie Elliott, Sally Haw, Caroline Jackson, Kate Levin, Philip Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/LYRQ5047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stronger social and emotional well-being during primary school is positively associated with the health and educational outcomes of young people. However, there is little evidence on which programmes are the most effective for improving social and emotional well-being.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective was to rigorously evaluate the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) intervention process for improving pupils' social and emotional well-being.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a stratified cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. Thirty-eight primary schools were randomly assigned to the SEED intervention or to the control group. Hierarchical regression analysis allowing for clustering at school learning community level was conducted in R (statistical package).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The SEED intervention is a whole-school intervention; it involved all school staff and two cohorts of pupils, one starting at 4 or 5 years of age and the second starting at 8 or 9 years of age, across all 38 schools.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 2639 pupils in Scotland.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>The SEED intervention used an iterative process that involved three components to facilitate selection and implementation of school-based actions: (1) questionnaire completion, (2) benchmarked feedback to all staff and (3) reflective discussions (all staff and an educational psychologist).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>The primary outcome was pupils' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score when pupils were 4 years older than at baseline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary outcome, pupils' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score at follow-up 3, showed improvements for intervention arm pupils, compared with those in the control arm [relative risk -1.30 (95% confidence interval -1.87 to -0.73), standardised effect size -0.27 (95% confidence interval -0.39 to -0.15)]. There was no evidence of intervention effects according to deprivation: the results were significant for both affluent and deprived pupils. Subgroup analysis showed that all effect sizes were larger for the older cohort, particularly boys [relative risk -2.36 (95% confidence interval -3.62 to -1.11), standardised effect size -0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.20)]. Although there was no statistically significant difference in incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year was high, at 88%. Particularly valued mechanisms of the SEED intervention were its provision of time to reflect on and discuss social and emotional well-being and its contribution to a culture of evaluating practice.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>It was a challenge to retain schools over five waves of data collection.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This trial demonstrated that the SEED intervention is an acceptable, cost-effective way to modestly improve pupil well-being and improve school climate, particularly for older boys and those with greater levels of psychological difficulties. It was beneficial during the transition from primary to secondary school, but this diminished after 6 years. The SEED intervention can be implemented alongside existing systems for addressing pupil well-being and can be complementary to other interventions.</p><p><strong>Future work: </strong>Assess whether or not the SEED intervention has a beneficial impact on academic attainment, is transferable to other countries and other organisational settings, would be strengthened by adding core training elements to the intervention process and is transferable to secondary schools. Understand the gender differences illustrated by the outcomes of this trial. Conduct further statistical research on how to handle missing data in longitudinal studies of complex social interventions.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This trial is registered as ISRCTN51707384.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 10/3006/13) and is published in full in <i>Public Health Research</i>; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public health research (Southampton, England)\",\"volume\":\"12 6\",\"pages\":\"1-173\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public health research (Southampton, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/LYRQ5047\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public health research (Southampton, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/LYRQ5047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:小学阶段较强的社交和情感幸福感与青少年的健康和教育成果呈正相关。然而,关于哪些计划对提高社交和情感幸福感最有效的证据却很少:目的:旨在严格评估社会和情感教育与发展(SEED)干预过程,以改善学生的社会和情感福祉:这是一项分层分组随机对照试验,其中包含过程评估和经济评估。38所小学被随机分配到SEED干预组或对照组。在 R(统计软件包)中进行了分层回归分析,允许在学校学习社区层面进行聚类:SEED干预措施是一种全校干预措施;它涉及所有38所学校的所有教职员工和两批学生,一批学生从4或5岁开始学习,另一批学生从8或9岁开始学习:苏格兰共有 2639 名学生:SEED 干预采用了一个迭代过程,包括三个组成部分,以促进选择和实施校本行动:(1) 填写调查问卷;(2) 向所有教职员工提供基准反馈;(3) 反思性讨论(所有教职员工和一名教育心理学家)。主要结果测量:主要结果是学生在比基线年龄大 4 岁时的优势和困难问卷--困难总分:与对照组相比,干预组学生的主要结果,即随访 3 期时的学生优势与困难问卷--总困难得分,有所改善[相对风险-1.30(95% 置信区间-1.87 至-0.73),标准化效应大小-0.27(95% 置信区间-0.39 至-0.15)]。没有证据表明干预效果与贫困程度有关:富裕学生和贫困学生的干预效果都很显著。分组分析表明,高年级学生,尤其是男生的所有效果大小都较大[相对风险-2.36(95%置信区间-3.62至-1.11),标准化效果大小-0.42(95%置信区间-0.64至-0.20)]。虽然在增量成本和质量调整生命年数方面没有统计学意义上的显著差异,但在每质量调整生命年数 20,000 英镑的支付意愿阈值下,干预措施具有成本效益的概率很高,达到 88%。SEED干预措施特别值得重视的机制是,它提供了反思和讨论社会与情感福祉的时间,以及它对评估实践文化的贡献:在五次数据收集过程中留住学校是一项挑战:这项试验表明,SEED 干预措施是一种可接受的、具有成本效益的方法,可以适度改善学生的幸福感和学校氛围,尤其是对年龄较大的男生和心理障碍较严重的男生而言。在从小学升入中学的过渡时期,SEED 干预是有益的,但 6 年后效果会减弱。SEED干预措施可以与现有的学生幸福感管理系统一起实施,并与其他干预措施相辅相成:评估 SEED 干预措施是否会对学业成绩产生有利影响,是否可以推广到其他国家和其他组织环境,是否可以通过在干预过程中增加核心培训元素来加强干预措施,是否可以推广到中学。了解该试验结果所显示的性别差异。就如何处理复杂社会干预纵向研究中的缺失数据开展进一步的统计研究:该试验的注册号为 ISRCTN51707384:该奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)公共卫生研究计划资助(NIHR奖项编号:10/3006/13),全文发表于《公共卫生研究》(Public Health Research)第12卷第6期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请访问 NIHR Funding and Awards 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。
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
The Social and Emotional Education and Development intervention to address wellbeing in primary school age children: the SEED cluster RCT.

Background: Stronger social and emotional well-being during primary school is positively associated with the health and educational outcomes of young people. However, there is little evidence on which programmes are the most effective for improving social and emotional well-being.

Objective: The objective was to rigorously evaluate the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) intervention process for improving pupils' social and emotional well-being.

Design: This was a stratified cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. Thirty-eight primary schools were randomly assigned to the SEED intervention or to the control group. Hierarchical regression analysis allowing for clustering at school learning community level was conducted in R (statistical package).

Setting: The SEED intervention is a whole-school intervention; it involved all school staff and two cohorts of pupils, one starting at 4 or 5 years of age and the second starting at 8 or 9 years of age, across all 38 schools.

Participants: A total of 2639 pupils in Scotland.

Intervention: The SEED intervention used an iterative process that involved three components to facilitate selection and implementation of school-based actions: (1) questionnaire completion, (2) benchmarked feedback to all staff and (3) reflective discussions (all staff and an educational psychologist).

Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was pupils' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score when pupils were 4 years older than at baseline.

Results: The primary outcome, pupils' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score at follow-up 3, showed improvements for intervention arm pupils, compared with those in the control arm [relative risk -1.30 (95% confidence interval -1.87 to -0.73), standardised effect size -0.27 (95% confidence interval -0.39 to -0.15)]. There was no evidence of intervention effects according to deprivation: the results were significant for both affluent and deprived pupils. Subgroup analysis showed that all effect sizes were larger for the older cohort, particularly boys [relative risk -2.36 (95% confidence interval -3.62 to -1.11), standardised effect size -0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.20)]. Although there was no statistically significant difference in incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year was high, at 88%. Particularly valued mechanisms of the SEED intervention were its provision of time to reflect on and discuss social and emotional well-being and its contribution to a culture of evaluating practice.

Limitations: It was a challenge to retain schools over five waves of data collection.

Conclusions: This trial demonstrated that the SEED intervention is an acceptable, cost-effective way to modestly improve pupil well-being and improve school climate, particularly for older boys and those with greater levels of psychological difficulties. It was beneficial during the transition from primary to secondary school, but this diminished after 6 years. The SEED intervention can be implemented alongside existing systems for addressing pupil well-being and can be complementary to other interventions.

Future work: Assess whether or not the SEED intervention has a beneficial impact on academic attainment, is transferable to other countries and other organisational settings, would be strengthened by adding core training elements to the intervention process and is transferable to secondary schools. Understand the gender differences illustrated by the outcomes of this trial. Conduct further statistical research on how to handle missing data in longitudinal studies of complex social interventions.

Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN51707384.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 10/3006/13) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Innovation and diversity in public health team engagement in local alcohol premises licensing: qualitative interview findings from the ExILEnS study. Public engagement to refine a whole-school intervention to promote adolescent mental health. Interventions to improve mental health and well-being in care-experienced children and young people aged less than 25: the CHIMES systematic review. Emotional literacy programme in special schools for children with a learning disability in England: the ZF-SEND feasibility RCT. Impact of short-term aircraft noise on cardiovascular disease risk in the area surrounding London Heathrow airport: the RISTANCO epidemiological study.
×
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