↓ Skip to main content

A process evaluation of a peer education project to improve mental health literacy in secondary school students: study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A process evaluation of a peer education project to improve mental health literacy in secondary school students: study protocol
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12889-021-11921-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Widnall, Steve Dodd, Ruth Simmonds, Helen Bohan, Abigail Russell, Mark Limmer, Judi Kidger

Abstract

Emotional disorders in young people are increasing but studies have found that this age group do not always recognise the signs and symptoms of mental health problems in themselves or others. The Mental Health Foundation's school-based Peer Education Project (PEP) has the potential to improve young people's understanding of their own mental health at a critical developmental stage (early adolescence) using a peer teaching method. This study is a process evaluation to understand: the mechanisms through which PEP might improve young people's mental health literacy, any challenges with delivery, how the project can be embedded within wider school life and how it can be improved to be of most benefit to the widest number of young people. We will also validate a bespoke mental health literacy questionnaire, and test the feasibility of using it to measure outcomes in preparation for a future study evaluating effectiveness. All schools recruited to the study will receive the PEP intervention. The process evaluation will be informed by realist evaluation approaches to build understanding regarding key mechanisms of change and the impact of different school contexts. The evaluation will test and revise an existing intervention logic model which has been developed in partnership with the Mental Health Foundation. Process evaluation data will be collected from newly recruited schools (n = 4) as well as current PEP user schools (n = 2) including training and lesson delivery observations, staff interviews and student focus groups. Baseline and follow-up data will be collected in all newly recruited intervention schools (n = 4) from all students in Year 7/8 (who receive the PEP) and recruited peer educators in Year 12 via a self-report survey. This study will enable us to refine the logic model underpinning the peer education project and identify areas of the intervention that can be improved. Findings will also inform the design of a future effectiveness study which will test out the extent to which PEP improves mental health literacy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 38 59%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 11%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 42 66%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2022.
All research outputs
#15,377,308
of 23,622,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,161
of 15,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,853
of 440,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#270
of 409 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,622,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 409 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.