Camille Allard , Rebecca Johnson , Sally O'Loughlin, Hareth Al-Janabi
{"title":"心理健康和福祉优先设置:英格兰学校证据使用的研究","authors":"Camille Allard , Rebecca Johnson , Sally O'Loughlin, Hareth Al-Janabi","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Educational settings represent an important site for mental health and wellbeing (MHWB) investment, with an upsurge in research evidence to support such investments. However, the way in which schools use evidence to support priority setting has not been widely documented. This article focuses on how, in practice, English schools use evidence in investing in MHWB initiatives. We conducted exploratory interviews and document analysis with decision-makers and stakeholders across four schools (two primary and two secondary). Five themes were derived to explain how school decision-makers select and use evidence (i) ‘context, needs, and ideology’; (ii) ‘internal and external data for self-management’; (iii) ‘experiences and expertise’; (iv) ‘evidence to inform and challenge’; and (v) ‘external social networks to access evidence’. The findings show the non-linear, interactive, role of evidence in schools, and how evidence is used via a ‘political model’, when decision-makers use research to back-up their position. Researchers seeking to inform resource allocation decisions in school settings may wish to work with interactive or political models of evidence use to increase the uptake of the evidence they generate.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"380 ","pages":"Article 118214"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mental health and wellbeing priority setting: a study of evidence use in schools in England\",\"authors\":\"Camille Allard , Rebecca Johnson , Sally O'Loughlin, Hareth Al-Janabi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Educational settings represent an important site for mental health and wellbeing (MHWB) investment, with an upsurge in research evidence to support such investments. However, the way in which schools use evidence to support priority setting has not been widely documented. This article focuses on how, in practice, English schools use evidence in investing in MHWB initiatives. We conducted exploratory interviews and document analysis with decision-makers and stakeholders across four schools (two primary and two secondary). Five themes were derived to explain how school decision-makers select and use evidence (i) ‘context, needs, and ideology’; (ii) ‘internal and external data for self-management’; (iii) ‘experiences and expertise’; (iv) ‘evidence to inform and challenge’; and (v) ‘external social networks to access evidence’. The findings show the non-linear, interactive, role of evidence in schools, and how evidence is used via a ‘political model’, when decision-makers use research to back-up their position. Researchers seeking to inform resource allocation decisions in school settings may wish to work with interactive or political models of evidence use to increase the uptake of the evidence they generate.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"380 \",\"pages\":\"Article 118214\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625005441\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625005441","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Mental health and wellbeing priority setting: a study of evidence use in schools in England
Educational settings represent an important site for mental health and wellbeing (MHWB) investment, with an upsurge in research evidence to support such investments. However, the way in which schools use evidence to support priority setting has not been widely documented. This article focuses on how, in practice, English schools use evidence in investing in MHWB initiatives. We conducted exploratory interviews and document analysis with decision-makers and stakeholders across four schools (two primary and two secondary). Five themes were derived to explain how school decision-makers select and use evidence (i) ‘context, needs, and ideology’; (ii) ‘internal and external data for self-management’; (iii) ‘experiences and expertise’; (iv) ‘evidence to inform and challenge’; and (v) ‘external social networks to access evidence’. The findings show the non-linear, interactive, role of evidence in schools, and how evidence is used via a ‘political model’, when decision-makers use research to back-up their position. Researchers seeking to inform resource allocation decisions in school settings may wish to work with interactive or political models of evidence use to increase the uptake of the evidence they generate.
期刊介绍:
Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.