IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v380y2025ics0277953625005441.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mental health and wellbeing priority setting: a study of evidence use in schools in England

Author

Listed:
  • Allard, Camille
  • Johnson, Rebecca
  • O'Loughlin, Sally
  • Al-Janabi, Hareth

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Allard, Camille & Johnson, Rebecca & O'Loughlin, Sally & Al-Janabi, Hareth, 2025. "Mental health and wellbeing priority setting: a study of evidence use in schools in England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 380(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:380:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625005441
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118214
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625005441
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118214?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:380:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625005441. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.