Premium
Innovations in Practice: CUES ‐Ed: an in‐service evaluation of a new universal cognitive behavioural early mental health intervention programme for primary school children
Author(s) -
Redfern Anna,
Jolley Suzanne,
Bracegirdle Karen,
Browning Sophie,
Plant Debbie
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
child and adolescent mental health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.912
H-Index - 46
eISSN - 1475-3588
pISSN - 1475-357X
DOI - 10.1111/camh.12309
Subject(s) - mental health , psychological intervention , psychology , intervention (counseling) , thematic analysis , vulnerability (computing) , distress , cognition , clinical psychology , medicine , psychiatry , qualitative research , social science , computer security , sociology , computer science
Background Earlier childhood interventions to reduce mental health vulnerability are a global health priority yet poorly implemented. Barriers include negotiating health/education interfaces, and mixed outcomes, particularly for vulnerable children. CUES ‐Ed aimed to address these barriers, comprising a cognitive behavioural early intervention targeting mental health vulnerability in 7–10 year‐olds, with integrated evaluation, delivered through close liaison with stakeholders. Following 2 years of ad hoc delivery, relationship‐building, and refining the intervention and evaluation, we report on implementation and in‐service outcomes for local schools completing the standardised CUES ‐Ed programme. Method We evaluated delivery from 01/2017 to 07/2017 across n = 12 schools ( n = 23 classes, n = 638 pupils, n = 35 teachers). Eight one‐hour weekly sessions (S1‐S8) were delivered by mental health professionals with teachers present. Pupil‐reported wellbeing/distress and emotional/behavioural difficulties were assessed at S1 and S8; pupil free text feedback/ratings and teacher ratings at S8. Two classes ( n = 60) completed outcomes whilst awaiting CUES ‐Ed, forming a naturalistic waitlist. Results At S8, pupil‐reported outcome data were obtained from 535 and feedback/ratings from 577 pupils, respectively. Thematic analysis of feedback indicated positive subjective impact. Vulnerable children (defined as self‐rated borderline/clinical cut‐off baselines scores on the wellbeing/distress and emotional/behavioural difficulties measures) improved with medium pre‐post effect sizes ( d = 0.46–0.65), and small, but consistent, effects compared to waitlist. Conclusion In‐service evaluation suggests a feasible model of delivery, good acceptability and potential to improve outcomes for vulnerable children. Controlled evaluation is now indicated.