心理健康和福祉优先设置:英格兰学校证据使用的研究

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
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 ,&nbsp;Rebecca Johnson ,&nbsp;Sally O'Loughlin,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Rebecca Johnson ,&nbsp;Sally O'Loughlin,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

教育环境是心理健康和福祉(MHWB)投资的重要场所,支持此类投资的研究证据激增。然而,学校使用证据来支持优先级设置的方式并没有被广泛记录。本文关注的是,在实践中,英国学校如何利用证据来投资MHWB计划。我们对四所学校(两所小学和两所中学)的决策者和利益相关者进行了探索性访谈和文件分析。衍生出五个主题来解释学校决策者如何选择和使用证据(1)“背景、需求和意识形态”;(ii)“用于自我管理的内部和外部数据”;(iii)“经验和专业知识”;(iv)“提供信息和挑战的证据”;(v)“获取证据的外部社交网络”。研究结果显示了证据在学校中的非线性、互动性作用,以及当决策者利用研究来支持他们的立场时,如何通过“政治模式”使用证据。寻求在学校环境中为资源分配决策提供信息的研究人员可能希望与证据使用的交互式或政治模型合作,以增加对他们产生的证据的吸收。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
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
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信