Co-production of two whole-school sexual health interventions for English secondary schools: positive choices and project respect.
Co-production
Complex health interventions
Dating and relationships violence
Evaluation
Public health
Relationships and sex education
Sexual harassment
Sexual health
Teenage pregnancy
Journal
Pilot and feasibility studies
ISSN: 2055-5784
Titre abrégé: Pilot Feasibility Stud
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101676536
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Feb 2021
17 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
25
03
2020
accepted:
16
12
2020
entrez:
18
2
2021
pubmed:
19
2
2021
medline:
19
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Whole-school interventions represent promising approaches to promoting adolescent sexual health, but they have not been rigorously trialled in the UK and it is unclear if such interventions are feasible for delivery in English secondary schools. The importance of involving intended beneficiaries, implementers and other key stakeholders in the co-production of such complex interventions prior to costly implementation and evaluation studies is widely recognised. However, practical accounts of such processes remain scarce. We report on co-production with specialist providers, students, school staff, and other practice and policy professionals of two new whole-school sexual heath interventions for implementation in English secondary schools. Formative qualitative inquiry involving 75 students aged 13-15 and 23 school staff. A group of young people trained to advise on public health research were consulted on three occasions. Twenty-three practitioners and policy-makers shared their views at a stakeholder event. Detailed written summaries of workshops and events were prepared and key themes identified to inform the design of each intervention. Data confirmed acceptability of addressing unintended teenage pregnancy, sexual health and dating and relationships violence via multi-component whole-school interventions and of curriculum delivery by teachers (providing appropriate teacher selection). The need to enable flexibility for the timetabling of lessons and mode of parent communication; ensure content reflected the reality of young people's lives; and develop prescriptive teaching materials and robust school engagement strategies to reflect shrinking capacity for schools to implement public-health interventions were also highlighted and informed intervention refinements. Our research further points to some of the challenges and tensions involved in co-production where stakeholder capacity may be limited or their input may conflict with the logic of interventions or what is practicable within the constraints of a trial. Multi-component, whole-school approaches to addressing sexual health that involve teacher delivered curriculum may be feasible for implementation in English secondary schools. They must be adaptable to individual school settings; involve careful teacher selection; limit additional burden on staff; and accurately reflect the realities of young people's lives. Co-production can reduce research waste and may be particularly useful for developing complex interventions, like whole-school sexual health interventions, that must be adaptable to varying institutional contexts and address needs that change rapidly. When co-producing, potential limitations in relation to the representativeness of participants, the 'depth' of engagement necessary as well as the burden on participants and how they will be recompensed must be carefully considered. Having well-defined, transparent procedures for incorporating stakeholder input from the outset are also essential. Formal feasibility testing of both co-produced interventions in English secondary schools via cluster RCT is warranted. Project Respect: ISRCTN12524938 . Positive Choices: ISRCTN65324176.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Whole-school interventions represent promising approaches to promoting adolescent sexual health, but they have not been rigorously trialled in the UK and it is unclear if such interventions are feasible for delivery in English secondary schools. The importance of involving intended beneficiaries, implementers and other key stakeholders in the co-production of such complex interventions prior to costly implementation and evaluation studies is widely recognised. However, practical accounts of such processes remain scarce. We report on co-production with specialist providers, students, school staff, and other practice and policy professionals of two new whole-school sexual heath interventions for implementation in English secondary schools.
METHODS
METHODS
Formative qualitative inquiry involving 75 students aged 13-15 and 23 school staff. A group of young people trained to advise on public health research were consulted on three occasions. Twenty-three practitioners and policy-makers shared their views at a stakeholder event. Detailed written summaries of workshops and events were prepared and key themes identified to inform the design of each intervention.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Data confirmed acceptability of addressing unintended teenage pregnancy, sexual health and dating and relationships violence via multi-component whole-school interventions and of curriculum delivery by teachers (providing appropriate teacher selection). The need to enable flexibility for the timetabling of lessons and mode of parent communication; ensure content reflected the reality of young people's lives; and develop prescriptive teaching materials and robust school engagement strategies to reflect shrinking capacity for schools to implement public-health interventions were also highlighted and informed intervention refinements. Our research further points to some of the challenges and tensions involved in co-production where stakeholder capacity may be limited or their input may conflict with the logic of interventions or what is practicable within the constraints of a trial.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Multi-component, whole-school approaches to addressing sexual health that involve teacher delivered curriculum may be feasible for implementation in English secondary schools. They must be adaptable to individual school settings; involve careful teacher selection; limit additional burden on staff; and accurately reflect the realities of young people's lives. Co-production can reduce research waste and may be particularly useful for developing complex interventions, like whole-school sexual health interventions, that must be adaptable to varying institutional contexts and address needs that change rapidly. When co-producing, potential limitations in relation to the representativeness of participants, the 'depth' of engagement necessary as well as the burden on participants and how they will be recompensed must be carefully considered. Having well-defined, transparent procedures for incorporating stakeholder input from the outset are also essential. Formal feasibility testing of both co-produced interventions in English secondary schools via cluster RCT is warranted.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Project Respect: ISRCTN12524938 . Positive Choices: ISRCTN65324176.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33597013
doi: 10.1186/s40814-020-00752-5
pii: 10.1186/s40814-020-00752-5
pmc: PMC7888187
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
50Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 14/184/02
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 15/03/09
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K023233/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Institute of Health Research
ID : 14/184/02 and 15/03/09
Références
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016 Mar 15;2:17
pubmed: 27965837
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014 Mar;68(3):288-90
pubmed: 24336237
Milbank Q. 2016 Jun;94(2):392-429
pubmed: 27265562
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002 Sep-Oct;34(5):244-51
pubmed: 12392217
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Aug;25(8):626-32
pubmed: 26993640
J Adolesc Health. 2015 Feb;56(2 Suppl 2):S20-6
pubmed: 25620449
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 08;11:CD006417
pubmed: 27824221
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019 Mar 12;5:41
pubmed: 30923626
Health Psychol Rev. 2017 Mar;11(1):33-52
pubmed: 27677440
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Future Child. 1999 Winter;9(3):133-44
pubmed: 10778006
Prev Sci. 2013 Feb;14(1):64-76
pubmed: 23076726
Syst Rev. 2018 Dec 6;7(1):227
pubmed: 30522529
PLoS Biol. 2017 May 3;15(5):e2001403
pubmed: 28467412
BMC Public Health. 2017 Sep 4;17(1):689
pubmed: 28870192
BMJ Open. 2019 May 30;9(5):e028756
pubmed: 31152042
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015 Jan;69(1):95-8
pubmed: 25403381
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2015 Oct 26;1:36
pubmed: 27965814
Am J Public Health. 2004 Apr;94(4):619-24
pubmed: 15054015
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD005215
pubmed: 19821341
J Sch Health. 1999 May;69(5):181-8
pubmed: 10363221
J Public Health (Oxf). 2018 Dec 1;40(4):738-746
pubmed: 29136181
Lancet. 2013 Nov 30;382(9907):1845-55
pubmed: 24286789
BMJ. 2002 Jun 15;324(7351):1426
pubmed: 12065267
Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388(10044):586-95
pubmed: 27229190
J Sex Res. 2017 Jan;54(1):91-104
pubmed: 26891245
J Sex Res. 2002 Feb;39(1):27-33
pubmed: 12476253
Public Health Rep. 2001;116 Suppl 1:82-93
pubmed: 11889277
J Prim Prev. 1985 Dec;6(2):73-97
pubmed: 24271382
Am J Prev Med. 2007 May;32(5 Suppl):S112-8
pubmed: 17466815
BMJ. 2004 Jun 26;328(7455):1561-3
pubmed: 15217878
Health Technol Assess. 2010 Feb;14(7):1-206, iii-iv
pubmed: 20178696
SSM Popul Health. 2017 Dec;3:132-135
pubmed: 29302610
Health Educ Behav. 2001 Apr;28(2):166-85
pubmed: 11265827
Am J Public Health. 1998 Jan;88(1):45-50
pubmed: 9584032
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Mar 28;17(1):33
pubmed: 30922339
Res Synth Methods. 2015 Jun;6(2):206-17
pubmed: 26099487
Trials. 2014 Jul 05;15:267
pubmed: 24996765
Prev Sci. 2005 Sep;6(3):245-58
pubmed: 16047088
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 May;70(5):520-5
pubmed: 26573236
Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2018 Sep 1;44(3):111-131
pubmed: 31251724
J Adolesc Health. 2016 Apr;58(4):382-396
pubmed: 27013271
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Mar;59(3):223-30
pubmed: 15709083
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 15;9(8):e029954
pubmed: 31420394
Am J Public Health. 2006 Sep;96(9):1582-7
pubmed: 16873760
Health Res Policy Syst. 2014 Jul 14;12:34
pubmed: 25023520
Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Oct;15(5):307-10
pubmed: 17074863
Ann Behav Med. 2005 Aug;30(1):65-73
pubmed: 16097907
Am Psychol. 1988 Nov;43(11):914-20
pubmed: 3214003
BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 13;6(9):e011329
pubmed: 27625058
Health Educ Behav. 2016 Apr;43(2):165-71
pubmed: 26286296
BMJ. 2014 May 13;348:g3078
pubmed: 25134103
Reprod Health. 2016 Nov 22;13(1):139
pubmed: 27876052
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Jul 11;16(1):60
pubmed: 29996848