Crowd-out in school-based health interventions: Evidence from India’s midday meals program

2021 ◽  
Vol 204 ◽  
pp. 104552
Author(s):  
James Berry ◽  
Saurabh Mehta ◽  
Priya Mukherjee ◽  
Hannah Ruebeck ◽  
Gauri Kartini Shastry
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Ponsford ◽  
Rebecca Meiksin ◽  
Joanna Crichton ◽  
Sara Bragg ◽  
Lucy Emmerson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The benefits of involving intended recipients, implementers and other stakeholders in the co-production of public health interventions are widely promoted. Practical accounts reflecting on the process and value of co-production in intervention design, however, remain scarce. We outline our approach to the co-production of two multi-component, school-based relationships and sex education interventions. We reflect on the utility of involving school staff, students, and other youth, professional and policy stakeholders in intervention design and on some of the challenges we encountered during the process. Methods: Seven consultations were conducted in southeast and southwest England involving 75 students aged 13–15 and 22 school staff. A group of young people trained to advise on public health research were consulted on three occasions. Twenty-three sexual health and sex education practitioners and policy makers shared their views at a stakeholder event. Written summaries of activities were prepared by researchers and shared with the specialist provider agencies for each intervention. Negotiated consensus between researchers and providers was reached about how participant views should inform intervention content, format and delivery models. Results: Consultations confirmed acceptability of intervention aims, components and delivery models, including curriculum delivery by teachers. They sensitised us to the need to ensure content reflected the reality of young people’s experiences; include flexibility for the timetabling of lessons; and to develop prescriptive teaching materials and robust school engagement strategies to reflect shrinking capacity for schools to implement public-health interventions. Accessing and prioritising stakeholder feedback was not always straightforward, however, where specific expertise or capacity for participation was limited or when participant views contradicted best practice, budget or the randomised controlled trial design. Conclusions: Involving potential recipients, implementers and wider stakeholders as co-producers in intervention design can bring valuable insights that can help reduce research waste. Successful co-production can be complex and challenging and requires careful consideration of the topics participants can most usefully speak to; the representativeness of those involved; the capacity available for participation; and how participants will be compensated. Findings also alert us to the importance of having well-defined, transparent procedures for deciding how stakeholder input will be incorporated.


Author(s):  
Ragaviveka Gopalan ◽  
C Sangeetha ◽  
P Ramakrishnan ◽  
Vijaya Raghavan

BACKGROUND About 70% of mental disorders emerge in late childhood and young peo-ple bear the burden of these disorders throughout life. Yet, to date there has been com-paratively little research on mental health interventions for young people in India and not many attempts have been made to collate the existing literature. This systematic review aims to synthesize the available evidence on school- and community-based mental health interventions for young people in India. METHODS A range of major electronic databases were searched systematically, and the abstracts of relevant papers were independently examined for possible inclusion. Selected papers were read in full text and a standardized set of data items were extracted. RESULTS Four papers met inclusion criteria for the analysis; two studies of school-based interventions for adolescents and two studies evaluating out-of-school community interventions for youth were reviewed. The quality of evidence from the interventions in Indian school and community settings were poor. While two studies evidence the effectiveness of a school-based life skills programme and a community based multicomponent intervention designed to promote youth health, two other studies do not offer sufficient data. CONCLUSION The review findings indicate that the number of interventional studies conducted in India to address youth mental health issues are very limited. Hence, it is extremely difficult to ensure the feasibility and effectiveness of school and community-based interventions in India. Further research is warranted to establish whether interventions promoting youth mental health people can be implemented effectively in Indian settings with positive mental health outcomes. Given the possibility of a huge population of young people at-risk or experiencing mental disorders, evidence for the efficacy of youth mental health interventions is crucial.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Randi K. Johnson ◽  
Molly Lamb ◽  
Hillary Anderson ◽  
Michelle Pieters-Arroyo ◽  
Bradley T. Anderson ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Hayley Reed ◽  
Danielle Couturiaux ◽  
Marianne Davis ◽  
Amy Edwards ◽  
Edward Janes ◽  
...  

AbstractCo-production affords an intervention’s target population the opportunity to participate in intervention theory decision-making during the development process. This addresses the over-reliance on developing interventions through academic theories which can be devoid of contextual understanding and result in challenges to implementing school-based health programmes. There is an emergent empirical literature on co-producing school-based health interventions, but an understanding of appropriate theoretical types and processes and stakeholders’ experiences is lacking. Through the conduct of a systematic review, this study seeks to understand the types and underlying theories and processes for co-production in school-based health interventions with students aged 11–16. A thematic synthesis explored stakeholders’ experiences of the different types of co-production. A systematic search of five electronic bibliographic databases, citation tracking of included studies, and consultation with an expert international panel were employed. Of 27,433 unique papers, 30 papers representing 22 studies were retained to describe types, and 23 papers of 18 studies used to synthesise stakeholders’ experiences. Three types were identified: external, individual-level, and system-level capacity-building. Whilst this review showed variability in co-production types, stakeholders involved and processes, shared functions were identified. Students’, school staff, facilitators’ and researchers’ experiences in terms of acceptability, feasibility and undertaking decision-making are discussed. Recommendations for conceptualising and reporting co-production and process evaluations of co-produced school-based health interventions are highlighted.


2002 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvia F. Kaaya ◽  
Wanjirû Mukoma ◽  
Alan J. Flisher ◽  
Knut‐lnge Klepp

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Todd ◽  
Danielle Christian ◽  
Helen Davies ◽  
Jaynie Rance ◽  
Gareth Stratton ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document