Cited by 23Mental Health Treatment and AccessSchool Health and Nursing EducationChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Use, acceptability and impact of booklets designed to support mental health self-management and help seeking in schools: results of a large randomised controlled trial in England

Open access
Sharpe, Helen, Patalay, Praveetha, Vostanis, Panos, Belsky, Jay, Humphrey, Neil, Wolpert, Miranda·2017·European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Abstract

Mental health booklets may provide a low-cost means of promoting mental health self-management and help seeking in schools. The aim of the study was to assess the (a) use, (b) acceptability and (c) impact of booklets for students in primary (10-11 years) and secondary school (12-13 years) alone and in conjunction with funding for targeted mental health support. This was a 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial, in which 846 schools in England were randomly allocated to receive/not receive: (1) booklets for students containing information on mental health self-management and help seeking, and (2) funding for mental health support as part of a national mental health initiative. 14,690 students (8139 primary, 6551 secondary) provided self-report on mental health, quality of life (baseline and 1 year follow-up) and help seeking (follow-up). (a) Approximately, 40 % primary school students and 20 % secondary school students reported seeing the booklets. (b) Of these, 87 % of primary school students reported that the booklet was 'very helpful' or 'quite helpful', compared with 73 % in secondary school. (c) There was no detectable impact of booklets on mental health, quality of life or help seeking, either alone or in conjunction with additional funding through the national mental health initiative. Lack of discernable impact of booklets underscores the need for caution in adopting such an approach. However, it is feasible that the impact was obscured by low uptake or that booklets may be more effective when used in a targeted way.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00787-016-0889-3

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharpe, H., Patalay, P., Vostanis, P., Belsky, J., Humphrey, N., & Wolpert, M.
Affiliations
  • Anna Freud Centre (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Sharpe, Helen
Venue
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Published
2016-07-21
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
315-324
ISSN
  • 1018-8827 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-165X
OpenAlex
W2505334051
Cited by
23
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Department for Education
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
mental health self-management, help-seeking, school-based mental health promotion, student mental health, quality of life, elementary school students, high school students, mental health funding, acceptability
MeSH terms
Help-Seeking Behavior, Adolescent, Child, England, Female, Health Education, Health Promotion, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Mental Health, Pamphlets, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Quality of Life, Schools, Self Care, Students, Cluster Analysis, Process Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review