Systematic review of the effects of schools and school environment interventions on health: evidence mapping and synthesis

Abstract

BackgroundIn contrast to curriculum-based health education interventions in schools, the school environment approach promotes health by modifying schools' physical/social environment. This systematic review reports on the health effects of the school environment and processes by which these might occur. It includes theories, intervention outcome and process evaluations, quantitative studies and qualitative studies.Research questionsResearch question (RQ)1: What theories are used to inform school environment interventions or explain school-level health influences? What testable hypotheses are suggested? RQ2: What are the effects on student health/inequalities of school environment interventions addressing organisation/management; teaching/pastoral care/discipline; and the physical environment? What are the costs? RQ3: How feasible/acceptable and context dependent are such interventions? RQ4: What are the effects on student health/inequalities of school-level measures of organisation/management; teaching/pastoral care/discipline; and the physical environment? RQ5: Through what processes might such influences occur?Data sourcesA total of 16 databases were searched between 30 July 2010 and 23 September 2010 to identify relevant studies, including the British Educational Index, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Health Management Information Consortium, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. In addition, references of included studies were checked and authors contacted.Review methodsIn stage 1, we mapped references concerning how the school environment affects health and consulted stakeholders to identify stage 2 priorities. In stage 2, we undertook five reviews corresponding to our RQs.ResultsStage 1: A total of 82,775 references were retrieved and 1144 were descriptively mapped. Stage 2: A total of 24 theories were identified (RQ1). The human functioning and school organisation, social capital and social development theories were judged most useful. Ten outcome evaluations were included (RQ2). Four US randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one UK quasi-experimental study examined interventions building school community/relationships. Studies reported benefits for some, but not all outcomes (e.g. aggression, conflict resolution, emotional health). Two US RCTs assessed interventions empowering students to contribute to modifying food/physical activity environments, reporting benefits for physical activity but not for diet. Three UK quasi-experimental evaluations examined playground improvements, reporting mixed findings, with benefits being greater for younger children and longer break times. Six process evaluations (RQ3) reported positively. One study suggested that implementation was facilitated when this built on existing ethos and when senior staff were supportive. We reviewed 42 multilevel studies, confining narrative synthesis to 10 that appropriately adjusted for confounders. Four UK/US reports suggested that schools with higher value-added attainment/attendance had lower rates of substance use and fighting. Three reports from different countries examined school policies on smoking/alcohol, with mixed results. One US study found that schools with more unobservable/unsupervised places reported increased substance use. Another US study reported that school size, age structure and staffing ratio did not correlate with student drinking. Twenty-one qualitative reports from different countries (RQ5) suggested that disengagement, lack of safety and lack of participation in decisions may predispose students to engage in health risks.LimitationsWe found no evidence regarding health inequalities or cost, and could not undertake meta-analysis.ConclusionsThere is non-definitive evidence for the feasibility and effectiveness of school environment interventions involving community/relationship building, empowering student participation in modifying schools' food/physical activity environments, and playground improvements. Multilevel studies suggest that schools that add value educationally may promote student health. Qualitative studies suggest pathways underlying these effects. This evidence lends broad support to theories of social development, social capital and human functioning and school organisation. Further trials to examine the effects of school environment modifications on student health are recommended.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

Pilot trial and process evaluation of a multilevel smoking prevention intervention in further education settings

“…Two recent systematic reviews of health improvement interventions in educational sites contain no reference to such studies in FE settings. 4,5 This finding supports calls from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for more evidence regarding smoking prevention interventions in secondary schools and in other youth settings such as FE institutions. 3 Furthermore, the failure of the two reviews 4,5 to identify any cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken within FE settings highlights the lack of rigorous health improvement evaluation in this context to date.…”

Adolescent Health and Adult Education and Employment: A Systematic Review

“…Whereas there is evidence that universal interventions such as healthpromoting schools can improve educational outcomes, 63 the data presented here suggest that identification and targeting those with health problems in adolescence may improve life chances in adulthood.…”

Student health and well-being in secondary schools: the role of school support staff alongside teaching staff

“…Thus, adolescence is a key life-course period during which to intervene to establish healthier trajectories. Schools provide a setting with high potential reach to facilitate delivery of universal adolescent health interventions which aim both to improve population health and to narrow inequalities (Bonell et al, 2013, 2014a; Langford et al, 2014; Moore et al, 2015b). …”

“…For example, Bonell et al (2013) found lower rates of substance use where students were more engaged in school. Value added in terms of the extent to which educational outcomes and attendance were better or worse than anticipated given a school's intake was viewed as a proxy for school culture, with authoritative schools more likely to combine a high level of control with a high level of support for students.…”

“…Students’ relationships with their teachers and with other students in the school environment are consistently predictive of a broad range of health and well-being outcomes (Bonell et al, 2013; Moore et al, 2017; Suldo et al, 2009). Interventions such as INCLUSIVE (Bonell et al, 2014b), a school environment intervention to tackle bullying, attempt to work with the pre-existing functioning of school systems and better orient these school environments towards supporting health.…”