Mindfulness-based interventions target many aspects of well-being, resiliency, and mental health by cultivating a present-centered awareness and acceptance (Fjorback et al., 2011; Gawrysiak et al., 2018; Greeson, 2009; Khoury et al., 2013; Roeser, 2014). Studies conducted over the past 15 years have examined the impact of MBIs on mental health, educational performance, and related outcomes in children and adolescents (Kallapiran et al., 2015; Meiklejohn et al., 2012). To address these challenges, many schools have adopted mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs).
This is based on a long history of research showing that the content of automatic thoughts can causally influence mood (Teasdale, 1983). When adapting the packaging of an intervention it is important for developers to make sure that changes do not modify the mechanisms of action of the intervention, but only the packaging. Depending on the characteristics of the population for which the intervention is being adapted, the changes could be extensive and not only include materials, but also include methods and settings for delivery.
This finding is in contrast to results from previous meta-analyses, one of which reported https://www.nj.gov/education/esser/arp/ an 11 percentile gain in academic achievement among students who received a social and emotional learning intervention (Durlak et al. 2011). Results from this meta-analysis revealed whole school interventions did not have a significant impact on academic performance. Previous meta-analyses of universal social and emotional learning interventions have reported higher effect sizes across social, emotional, behavioural, and academic domains (e.g. Durlak et al. 2011; Sklad et al. 2012). Whole school interventions have received significant investment in the past decade; however, their impact remains unclear. Visual inspection of the funnel plots (supplementary materials) showed no evidence of publication bias for the outcomes “social and emotional adjustment” and “behavioural adjustment”.
- Schools that are disorganized or have a large number of at-risk students may encounter more problems in implementing interventions with high fidelity (Gottfredson et al, 2002; Tolan et al, 2004).
- SIC data for these schools indicates that all except one discontinued in Stage 1 (i.e. during initial engagement) and the remaining school discontinued in Stage 2 (i.e. during feasibility consideration).
- However, as noted earlier, more research is needed to develop a systematic process for adapting supports and examine the effectiveness of supports across tiers.
Taking an intersectionality approach offers a valuable perspective for studying intervention development and evaluation, but it also presents several challenges. Considering intersectionality when developing or adapting interventions can enhance our understanding of multiple aspects of interventions including access, engagement, and response. In addition, in order to enhance implementation, the investigators employed a model that included services provided by peers slightly older than the target students. Without improvements in academic success, typical approaches to enhance school engagement are likely to not adequately address the needs of students with attention problems.
The Formative Phase of the Intervention Research Framework: Literature and Expert Review
Further research is required to advance our understanding of the type of support required by schools from the education system to implement evidence-based programmes with high quality and embed them within the school system. This support can include advocating for policies that support whole school integration of social and emotional learning, defining age-specific standards for student outcomes across social and emotional learning domains and allocating the required resources for the adoption of evidence-based interventions. The field of K-12 education contains a vast array of educational interventions – such as reading and math curricula, schoolwide reform programs, after-school programs, and new educational technologies – that claim to be able to improve educational outcomes and, in many cases, to be supported by evidence. NIMH also supports non-clinical trial research that aims to develop and evaluate performance feedback systems, decision support tools, and quality improvement projects that optimize the delivery of effective mental health interventions in schools and other non-specialty care settings (PAR , PAR ; US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, 2021c, 2022b). Despite the potential for schools to expand access to evidence-based mental health services, the above challenges have contributed to the limited uptake and sustainment of evidence-based mental health interventions (Cook et al., 2019; Owens et al., 2014). While many studies have demonstrated both the feasibility and effectiveness of school mental health interventions for improving or preventing youth mental health symptoms and enhancing academic outcomes (Evans et al., 2023; Hoover & Bostic, 2021; Lai et al., 2016; Richter et al., 2022; Ross et al., 2020; Sanchez et al., 2018), findings have not been universally positive.
Mental Health
Much like other computer-assisted treatments, Camp Cope-A-Lot addresses several barriers to the implementation of evidence-based SBIs by requiring minimal therapist training, staff time, and financial burden. One computer-assisted intervention that has been developed for anxious youth is Camp Cope-A-Lot (Khanna & Kendall, 2008), a 12-session computer-assisted CBT program based on the Coping Cat program (Kendall & Hedtke, 2006). Furthermore, proficiency emerged as a potentially important organizational factor to examine in future school-based implementation research. Where the ESEA requires states, districts and schools to use EBPs, it generally requires that the EBP fall under one of four tiers of evidence.
Over the past number of years, the US has made significant advancements in embedding support for social and emotional learning at district and state levels. All of which can assist in creating the necessary conditions for school-wide social and emotional learning. Support from the education system at national level has the power to catalyse systemic change at school level by communicating a culture of “what matters” in school learning (Oberle et al. 2016).