Cited by 32Health Policy Implementation ScienceSchool Health and Nursing EducationEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Using qualitative research to explore intervention mechanisms: findings from the trial of the Learning Together whole-school health intervention

Open access
Warren, Emily, Melendez-Torres, G. J., Viner, Russell, Bonell, Chris·2020·Trials

Abstract

Background: This study reports on qualitative research conducted within a randomised controlled trial to explore possible intervention mechanisms. It focuses on the ‘Learning Together’ whole-school intervention delivered in secondary schools in England from 2014 to 2017 aiming to prevent bullying and aggression and improve student health. Intervention schools received staff training in restorative practice, a social and emotional learning curriculum, and an external facilitator and manual to convene and run a student/staff action group tasked with coordinating the intervention, focusing this on local needs. Methods: Informed by realist approaches to evaluation, we analysed qualitative data to explore intervention mechanisms and how these might interact with school contexts to generate outcomes. Qualitative analysis drew on 45 interviews and 21 focus groups across three case-study schools and employed thematic content analysis to explore how intervention resources were taken up and used by local actors, how participants described the intervention mechanisms that then ensued, and how these might have generated beneficial outcomes. Results: The thematic content analysis identified three social mechanisms that recurred in participant accounts: (1) building student commitment to the school community, (2) building healthy relationships by modelling and teaching pro-social skills, and (3) de-escalating bullying and aggression and enabling re-integration within the school community. Conclusions: Our analysis provides in-depth exploration of possible mechanisms and the contextual contingencies associated with these, allowing refinement of the initial intervention theory of change. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry 10751359. Registered on 11 March 2014

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 · 10.1186/s13063-020-04688-2

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • Desirable changes did not need to be observed across a whole school or even multiple children in a classroom; teachers responded positively and favourably when change was observed with just one student.

    “Often, desirable changes did not need to be observed across a whole school, or even multiple children in a classroom; teachers responded positively and favourably when change was observed with just one student (e.g., Warren et al. 2020).”

    From School‐Based Interventions for Reducing Disciplinary School Exclusion. An Updated Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Warren et al. 2020

    In Results, ‘Increasing student commitment to the school community’ (page unavailable), a staff member praises one boy’s improved maturity, supporting the point that a teacher could respond positively to an individual change. But the paper does not say that change across a classroom or school was unnecessary; the same passage emphasizes how that boy’s participation could influence other students. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Group discussion was particularly positive when it allowed for discussion and collaboration with participants from other schools, providing different perspectives and shared experiences.

    “Group discussion was particularly positive when it allowed for discussion and collaboration with participants from other schools; providing different perspectives and shared experiences (e.g., Warren et al. 2020).”

    From School‐Based Interventions for Reducing Disciplinary School Exclusion. An Updated Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Warren et al. 2020

    The Results section, “Increasing student commitment to the school community” (page not available), reports that students valued action-group conversations and hearing others’ views. The Discussion’s “Summary of key findings” describes students and staff sharing perspectives and experiences. Neither passage supports the specific claim that participants discussed or collaborated with people from other schools; the groups described were within schools. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The effect of seeing the impact of an intervention on student behaviour was a considerable facilitator to the implementation of programmes.

    “Finally, the effect of seeing the impact of an intervention on student behaviour was a considerable facilitator to the implementation of programmes (e.g., Middleton 2022; Warren et al. 2020).”

    From School‐Based Interventions for Reducing Disciplinary School Exclusion. An Updated Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Warren et al. 2020

    The Results sections on increasing student commitment and building healthy relationships describe changes in student behaviour and conditions for implementing Learning Together. They do not say that seeing those behavioural changes facilitated implementation. Searches for staff seeing results or changes in students did not establish that link. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [15]Warren E, Bevilacqua L, Opondo C, Allen E, Mathiot A, West G, et al. Action groups as a participative strategy for leading whole-school health promotion: results on implementation from the INCLUSIVE trial in English secondary schools. British Educ Res J. 2019;45(5):979-1000.
  2. [17]Kokotsaki D White C Hopkins B Capturing change: a review of the implementation of restorative approaches and its outcomes within a local authority in North East England Online Educ Res J 2014 5 151
  3. [25]Bernstein B. Class, codes and control: applied studies towards a sociology of language. Routledge: Psychology Press; 2003.
  4. [35]Sherman LW, Schmidt JD, Rogan DP. Policing domestic violence: experiments and dilemmas. New York: Free Press; 1992.
  5. [37]Bonell C Allen E Warren E McGowan J Bevilacqua L Jamal F Effects of the Learning Together intervention on bullying and aggression in English secondary schools (INCLUSIVE): a cluster randomised controlled trial Lancet 2018 392 10163 2452 2464 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31782-3 30473366 PMC6286420 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [41]Giddens A The constitution of society 1984 Cambridge Polity Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Warren, E., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Viner, R., & Bonell, C.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Warren, Emily
Venue
Trials
Published
2020-09-10
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
774-774
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4241911387
Cited by
32
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • La Trobe University (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of Health Research (12/153/60)
  • Education Endowment Foundation (no award number)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
bullying prevention, aggression prevention, restorative practices, social-emotional learning, intervention mechanisms, realist evaluation, school community, prosocial skills, student-staff relationships, student reintegration, theory of change, secondary schools
MeSH terms
England, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Schools, Students, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, Bullying

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