Sangath, Porvorim, Goa, India; MRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
MRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Lancet. 2018 Dec 8;392(10163):2465-2477. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31615-5. Epub 2018 Nov 22.
School environments affect health and academic outcomes. With increasing secondary school retention in low-income and middle-income countries, promoting quality school social environments could offer a scalable opportunity to improve adolescent health and wellbeing.
We did a cluster-randomised trial to assess the effectiveness of a multi-component whole-school health promotion intervention (SEHER) with integrated economic and process evaluations in grade 9 students (aged 13-14 years) at government-run secondary schools in the Nalanda district of Bihar state, India. Schools were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to three groups: the SEHER intervention delivered by a lay counsellor (the SEHER Mitra [SM] group), the SEHER intervention delivered by a teacher (teacher as SEHER Mitra [TSM] group), and a control group in which only the standard government-run classroom-based life-skills Adolescence Education Program was implemented. The primary outcome was school climate measured with the Beyond Blue School Climate Questionnaire (BBSCQ). Students were assessed at the start of the academic year (June, 2015) and again 8 months later at the end of the academic year (March, 2016) via self-completed questionnaires. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02484014.
Of the 112 eligible schools in the Nalanda district, 75 were randomly selected to participate in the trial. We randomly assigned 25 schools to each of the three groups. One school subsequently dropped out of the TSM group, leaving 24 schools in this group. The baseline survey included a total of 13 035 participants, and the endpoint survey included 14 414 participants. Participants in the SM-delivered intervention schools had substantially higher school climate scores at endpoint survey than those in the control group (BBSCQ baseline-adjusted mean difference [aMD] 7·57 [95% CI 6·11-9·03]; effect size 1·88 [95% CI 1·44-2·32], p<0·0001) and the TSM-delivered intervention (aMD 7·57 [95% CI 6·06-9·08]; effect size 1·88 [95% CI 1·43-2·34], p<0·0001). There was no effect of the TSM-delivered intervention compared with control (aMD -0·009 [95% CI -1·53 to 1·51], effect size 0·00 [95% CI -0·45 to 0·44], p=0·99). Compared with the control group, participants in the SM-delivered intervention schools had moderate to large improvements in the secondary outcomes of depression (aMD -1·23 [95% CI -1·89 to -0·57]), bullying (aMD -0·91 [95% CI -1·15 to -0·66]), violence victimisation (odds ratio [OR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·46-0·84]), violence perpetration (OR 0·68 [95% CI 0·48-0·96]), attitude towards gender equity (aMD 0·41 [95% CI 0·21-0·61]), and knowledge of reproductive and sexual health (aMD 0·29 [95% CI 0·06-0·53]). Similar results for these secondary outcomes were noted for the comparison between SM-delivered intervention schools and TSM-delivered intervention schools (depression: aMD -1·23 [95% CI -1·91 to -0·55]; bullying: aMD -0·83 [95% CI -1·08 to -0·57]; violence victimisation: OR 0·49 [95% CI 0·35-0·67]; violence perpetration: OR 0·49 [95% CI 0·34-0·71]; attitude towards gender equity: aMD 0·23 [95% CI 0·02-0·44]; and knowledge of reproductive and sexual health: aMD 0·22 [95% CI -0·02 to 0·47]). However, no effects on these secondary outcomes were observed for the TSM-delivered intervention schools compared with the control group (depression: aMD -0·03 [95% CI -0·70 to 0·65]; bullying: aMD -0·08 [95% CI -0·34 to 0·18]; violence victimisation: OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·93-1·73]; violence perpetration: OR 1·37 [95% CI 0·95-1·95]; attitude towards gender equity: aMD 0·17 [95% CI -0·09 to 0·38]; and knowledge of reproductive and sexual health: aMD 0·06 [95% CI -0·18 to 0·32]).
The multi-component whole-school SEHER health promotion intervention had substantial beneficial effects on school climate and health-related outcomes when delivered by lay counsellors, but no effects when delivered by teachers. Future research should focus on the evaluation of the scaling up of the SEHER intervention in diverse contexts and delivery agents.
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, USA and the United Nations Population Fund India Office.
学校环境会影响健康和学业成果。随着中低收入国家中学保留率的提高,促进高质量的学校社会环境可能为改善青少年健康和幸福感提供了一个具有可扩展性的机会。
我们进行了一项整群随机试验,以评估在印度比哈尔邦那兰达区政府运营的中学 9 年级学生(年龄 13-14 岁)中实施的多组分全学校健康促进干预(SEHER)的有效性,该干预措施包括经济和过程评估。学校被随机分为三组(1:1:1):由辅导员实施的 SEHER 干预(SEHER 米特拉 [SM] 组)、由教师实施的 SEHER 干预(教师作为 SEHER 米特拉 [TSM] 组)和仅实施政府运行的课堂式生活技能青春期教育计划的对照组。主要结局是使用 Beyond Blue 学校气候问卷(BBSCQ)测量的学校气候。学生在学年开始时(2015 年 6 月)和 8 个月后(2016 年 3 月)通过自我完成的问卷进行评估。这项研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,编号为 NCT02484014。
在那兰达区的 112 所符合条件的学校中,有 75 所被随机选中参加试验。我们随机将 25 所学校分配到三组。其中一所学校后来退出了 TSM 组,剩下 24 所学校。基线调查共包括 13035 名参与者,终点调查包括 14414 名参与者。与对照组相比,接受 SM 干预学校的参与者在终点调查中的学校气候得分显著更高(BBSCQ 基线调整后的平均差异 [aMD] 7.57 [95%CI 6.11-9.03];效应量 1.88 [95%CI 1.44-2.32],p<0.0001)和 TSM 干预(aMD 7.57 [95%CI 6.06-9.08];效应量 1.88 [95%CI 1.43-2.34],p<0.0001)。与对照组相比,TSM 干预组的效果为 0.009(95%CI -1.53 至 1.51),效应量为 0.00 [95%CI -0.45 至 0.44],p=0.99)。与对照组相比,接受 SM 干预的学校的参与者在抑郁(aMD -1.23 [95%CI -1.89 至 -0.57])、欺凌(aMD -0.91 [95%CI -1.15 至 -0.66])、暴力受害(比值比 [OR] 0.62 [95%CI 0.46-0.84])、暴力侵害(OR 0.68 [95%CI 0.48-0.96])、性别平等态度(aMD 0.41 [95%CI 0.21-0.61])和生殖与性健康知识(aMD 0.29 [95%CI 0.06-0.53])等次要结局方面有中度到大幅度的改善。在 SM 干预学校和 TSM 干预学校之间的比较中也观察到了这些次要结局的类似结果(抑郁:aMD -1.23 [95%CI -1.91 至 -0.55];欺凌:aMD -0.83 [95%CI -1.08 至 -0.57];暴力受害:OR 0.49 [95%CI 0.35-0.67];暴力侵害:OR 0.49 [95%CI 0.34-0.71];性别平等态度:aMD 0.23 [95%CI 0.02-0.44];生殖与性健康知识:aMD 0.22 [95%CI -0.02 至 0.47])。然而,与对照组相比,TSM 干预组对这些次要结局没有影响(抑郁:aMD -0.03 [95%CI -0.70 至 0.65];欺凌:aMD -0.08 [95%CI -0.34 至 0.18];暴力受害:OR 1.27 [95%CI 0.93-1.73];暴力侵害:OR 1.37 [95%CI 0.95-1.95];性别平等态度:aMD 0.17 [95%CI -0.09 至 0.38];生殖与性健康知识:aMD 0.06 [95%CI -0.18 至 0.32])。
多组分全学校 SEHER 健康促进干预措施由辅导员实施时,对学校气候和与健康相关的结果有显著的有益影响,但由教师实施时没有效果。未来的研究应侧重于评估在不同背景和不同实施者下扩大 SEHER 干预措施的规模。
美国约翰·D·和凯瑟琳·T·麦克阿瑟基金会和联合国人口基金印度办事处。