Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGobat, Nina
dc.contributor.authorLittlecot, Hannah
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Andy
dc.contributor.authorMcEwan, Kirsten
dc.contributor.authorStanton, Helen
dc.contributor.authorRobling, Michael
dc.contributor.authorRollnick, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Simon
dc.contributor.authorEvans, Rhiannon
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-22T11:37:33Z
dc.date.available2021-01-22T11:37:33Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-18
dc.identifier.citationGobat, N.H., Littlecott, H., Williams, A., McEwan, K., Stanton, H., Robling, M., Rollnick, S., Murphy, S. and Evans, R., (2020). 'Developing whole-school mental health and wellbeing intervention through pragmatic formative process evaluation: A case-study of innovative local practice within the School Health Research Network'. BMC Public Health, 154, pp. 1-16.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12889-020-10124-6
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/625548
dc.description.abstractThe 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 theory of a whole-school restorative approach, alongside plans to scale up through a national educational infrastructure in order to support robust scientific evaluation. A pragmatic formative process evaluation was conducted of a routinized whole-school restorative approach aimed at improving student mental health and wellbeing in Wales. The study reports seven phases of the pragmatic formative process evaluation that may be undertaken in the development and evaluation of interventions already in routine practice: 1) identification of innovative local practice; 2) scoping review of evidence-base to identify existing intervention programme theory; outcomes; and contextual characteristics that influence programme theory and implementation; 3) establishment of a Transdisciplinary Action Research (TDAR) group; 4) co-production of an initial intervention logic model with stakeholders; 5) confirmation of logic model with stakeholders; 6) planning for intervention refinement; and 7) planning for feasibility and outcome evaluation. The phases of this model may be iterative and not necessarily sequential. Formative, pragmatic process evaluations support researchers, policy-makers and practitioners in developing a robust scientific evidence-base for acceptable and feasible local innovation that does not 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipWellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund, Cardiff University, grant no. 510564.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBMCen_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-10616/v2en_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/en_US
dc.subjectProcess evaluationen_US
dc.subjectIntervention developmenten_US
dc.subjectRestorative approachen_US
dc.titleDeveloping a whole-school mental health and wellbeing intervention through pragmatic formative process evaluation: A case-study of innovative local practice within the School Health Research Networken_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.eissn1471-2458
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Oxforden_US
dc.contributor.departmentCardiff Universityen_US
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Derbyen_US
dc.identifier.journalBMC Public Healthen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2020-12-23
refterms.dateFOA2021-01-22T11:37:34Z
dc.author.detail780504en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Nina paper.pdf
Size:
1.789Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Word doc of accepted manuscript ...

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record