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.
Background
School‐based early intervention may alleviate current emotional and behavioural problems, and, by targeting underlying vulnerability, safeguard children's future mental health. Improving on mixed outcomes to date is an international public health priority. CUES‐Ed is a classroom‐based, clinician‐led, universal cognitive behavioural programme for primary school children, designed to promote emotional literacy and regulation. Additionally, CUES‐Ed targets cognitive mechanisms implicated in the future development of mental disorder: stigmatising appraisals of emotional expression and of unusual perceptual experiences, and the tendency to jump‐to‐conclusions (JTC). We report here on fitness for purpose of our in‐service assessment of cognitive vulnerability, and change in cognitive vulnerability following CUES‐Ed and compared with a naturalistic waitlist.
Methods
From 05/2017–11/2017, 960 children participated (900 CUES‐Ed; 60 naturalistic waitlist). Assessments were completed in whole classes; 732 children provided pre‐post data on all measures; 227 were missing data through absence or poor completion (n = 1 declined assessment).
Results
Relationships between baseline cognitive vulnerability measures and their components were consistent with reliable and valid assessment. Cognitive vulnerability reduced from before to after CUES‐Ed and compared with the naturalistic waitlist, for JTC (large effects) and stigmatising appraisals (small–medium effects), for all children (ESs pre‐post: 0.2–1.0; between‐group: 0.1–1.0) and vulnerable subgroups (ESs pre‐post: 0.5–1.7; between‐group: 0.2–2.0).
Conclusions
Targeted cognitive vulnerability mechanisms change following CUES‐Ed. As stigmatising appraisals and JTC may increase vulnerability to future mental illness, findings suggest a promise in reducing future risk. A formally controlled research study, with longer‐term follow‐up, is required to test this. Limitations and implications for future evaluation are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.