Impact of intersectoral health and education training on school learning outcomes and emotions

Abstract

Objectives: Schools that have partnerships with health services have shown improvements in attendance and academic performance. This study examined the effects of intersectoral educational training (IET) between the health and education sectors on students’ learning outcomes, emotional experiences and subjective task values. Design: In this experimental field study, students in the control group were taught about health by a regular team of teachers, the experimental group was taught by a teacher–general practitioner team. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected at three different points of time. Setting: The study was conducted with students aged between 13 and 14 years in three classes at a secondary school in Baden-Wuerttemberg. Methods: Data were collected on demographic variables as well as learning outcomes assessed by a multiple choice test. For the assessment of emotional experiences, the validated Achievement Emotions Questionnaire was used and for subjective task values a modified Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire was employed. Quantitatively, descriptive statistics were calculated and correlation analyses were conducted to explore the association of positive emotions and task value with knowledge after the intervention and follow-up. Results: Over time, 69 of 76 participants (91%) completed all three surveys. Both groups showed significant and sustainable knowledge increases, but there were no significant differences between the groups in knowledge increase, positive emotions and task values. Conclusion: Health education in public secondary schools seems useful for increasing students’ health knowledge both in the short- and longer-term. However, future research will need to examine the potential effects of IET approaches on students’ cognitive and motivational experience.

Teaching methods for critical thinking in health education of children up to high school: A scoping review

“…Most studies conducted in Europe concerned lifestyle, including both nutrition and/or physical activity interventions [ 7 , 9 , 11 , 22 , 24 , 46 , 91 , 97 , 103 , 106 , 109 , 126 , 134 ], public health [ 8 , 12 , 13 , 29 , 47 , 88 , 101 , 105 , 139 ], and psychoactive substance use [ 7 , 15 , 48 , 51 , 84 , 114 , 122 ]. Four papers concerned somatic health [ 22 , 30 , 97 , 125 ] and five–mental health [ 68 , 97 , 99 , 109 , 113 ]. Only two educational intervention addressed sexual health [ 28 , 115 ].…”

“…Slightly less studies (27; 23,5%) tested an intervention on nutrition (23,5%) [ 8 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 22 , 23 , 46 , 57 , 60 , 77 , 87 , 89 , 91 , 96 , 97 , 103 , 109 , 110 , 112 , 123 , 125 , 126 , 135 , 140 – 142 ]. Public health problems, such as health care [ 21 ], violence [ 13 , 18 , 78 ], global health [ 8 ], organ donation [ 88 ], anti-microbial resistance [ 107 ], zoonosis [ 101 ], use of medicine [ 12 ], and bioethical dilemmas linked to health [ 47 ], social inequalities [ 31 ] were taught in 25% of reported interventions.…”

“…Even fewer articles reported interventions on mental health issues, such as emotional regulation [ 64 , 89 , 97 ], resilience [ 23 ] and healthy relationships [ 23 , 111 , 119 ]. Nearly every third tested intervention covered more than one health issue [ 7 , 16 , 17 , 21 – 23 , 50 , 55 , 64 , 77 , 78 , 82 , 86 , 87 , 89 , 97 , 109 , 111 , 112 , 119 , 124 – 127 , 135 , 136 , 140 , 141 ]. Topics such as epidemic or pandemic were discussed only in a few articles, mainly with regards to HIV and AIDS [ 73 , 116 , 133 ] or social inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 31 ].…”

“…Within the model of health promoting schools, introduced by the World Health Organization after the release of the Ottawa Charter during the first International Conference on Health Promotion in Ottawa, Canada, in 1986, the socio-ecological perspective on health education was applied in schools [ 23 ]. As a result, a number of educational interventions on health involved activities engaging the whole school community [ 10 , 15 , 16 , 21 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 32 , 46 , 57 , 78 , 81 , 86 , 87 , 96 , 99 , 100 , 103 , 109 , 113 , 119 , 124 , 137 , 141 , 142 ] or even a broader local community [ 45 , 63 , 66 , 69 , 89 , 93 , 102 , 103 , 112 , 116 , 131 , 133 , 141 , 143 , 145 ], and not just standard classroom teaching. In some studies, not only was the pupil-teacher relationship explored, but also contacts with other social actors were arranged.…”

“…In these interventions, critical thinking was classified as having a low level of significance. The most common approaches reported by the authors were group discussions or debates [ 7 , 9 , 15 , 20 , 26 , 47 , 53 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 69 , 76 , 93 , 109 , 117 ], Socratic discussions [ 52 , 95 ], question boxes [ 94 , 124 ], unspecified decision-making exercises [ 23 – 25 , 49 , 55 , 65 , 68 , 74 , 77 , 85 , 97 , 112 , 127 , 134 ], or reflection activities [ 118 ]. The low significance of critical thinking teaching methods was noted in interventions from all decades.…”