SummaryBackgroundBullying, aggression, and violence among children and young people are some of the most consequential public mental health problems. We tested the Learning Together intervention, which involved students in efforts to modify their school environment using restorative practice and by developing social and emotional skills.MethodsWe did a cluster randomised trial, with economic and process evaluations, of the Learning Together intervention compared with standard practice (controls) over 3 years in secondary schools in south-east England. Learning Together consisted of staff training in restorative practice; convening and facilitating a school action group; and a student social and emotional skills curriculum. Primary outcomes were self-reported experience of bullying victimisation (Gatehouse Bullying Scale; GBS) and perpetration of aggression (Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime (ESYTC) school misbehaviour subscale) measured at 36 months. We analysed data using intention-to-treat longitudinal mixed-effects models. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry (10751359).FindingsWe included 40 schools (20 in each group); no schools withdrew. 6667 (93·6%) of 7121 students participated at baseline and 5960 (83·3%) of 7154 at 36 months. Mean GBS bullying score at 36 months was 0·34 (SE 0·02) in the control group versus 0·29 (SE 0·02) in the intervention group, with a significant adjusted mean difference (−0·03, 95% CI −0·06 to −0·001; adjusted effect size −0·08). Mean ESYTC score at 36 months was 4·33 (SE 0·20) in the control group versus 4·04 (0·21) in the intervention group, with no evidence of a difference between groups (adjusted difference −0·13, 95% CI −0·43 to 0·18; adjusted effect size −0·03). Costs were an additional £58 per pupil in intervention schools than in control schools.InterpretationLearning Together had small but significant effects on bullying, which could be important for public health, but no effect on aggression. Interventions to promote student health by modifying the whole-school environment are likely to be one of the most feasible and efficient ways of addressing closely related risk and health outcomes in children and young people.FundingNational Institute for Health Research, Educational Endowment Foundation.

OBJECTIVE: Poor health in adolescence has the potential to disrupt education and employment pathways. This study is the first systematic review of the literature examining education and employment outcomes in adulthood of poor adolescent mental and physical health. METHODS:We conducted searches using a standardized search protocol in 8 electronic databases: PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, ERIC, British Education Index, Australian Education Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and CINAHL Plus. We identified studies that longitudinally compared adult education and employment outcomes of those with an adolescent chronic condition of clinical severity with healthy controls. We conducted metaanalyses using odds ratios (for dichotomous variables) and Cohen's d (for continuous variables) as our main summary statistics. RESULTS:We identified 27 studies incorporating 70 relevant analyses. Our meta-analyses suggested that overall, poor health in adolescence was associated with poorer education and employment outcomes in adulthood. However, evidence was much stronger for mental health conditions than for physical health conditions, for which less evidence was available and mixed findings emerged. Compared with mental health conditions, we identified few studies investigating the long-term outcomes of physical health conditions. Age and follow-up times varied considerably across our studies, which potentially resulted in some heterogeneity in effect sizes. The majority of included studies were conducted in the United States, raising questions about the generalizability of the results internationally.CONCLUSIONS: Health in adolescence contributes to adult attainment and life chances. The results suggest that investment in health may improve life chances and that policy interventions may improve outcomes for those with adolescent chronic conditions.

outcomes compared to the low group, but the magnitude of risk differed across trajectories, with a general trend for the EOP to perform significantly worse, followed by the AO and CL. Early intervention is recommended across domains to maximise likelihood of desistance from antisocial behaviour and improvement on several psychosocial outcomes.

BackgroundBullying and cyberbullying are common phenomena in schools. These negative behaviours can have a significant impact on the health and particularly mental health of those involved in such behaviours, both as victims and as bullies. This UK study aims to investigate student-level and school-level characteristics of those who become involved in bullying and cyberbullying behaviours as victims or perpetrators.MethodsWe used data from 6667 Year 7 students from the baseline survey of a cluster randomized trial in 40 English schools to investigate the associations between individual-level and school-level variables with bullying victimization, cyberbullying perpetration, and cyberbullying victimization. We ran multilevel models to examine associations of bullying outcomes with individual-level variables and school-level variables.ResultsIn multilevel models, at the school level, school type and school quality measures were associated with bullying risk: students in voluntary-aided schools were less likely to report bullying victimization (0.6 (0.4, 0.9) p = 0.008), and those in community (3.9 (1.5, 10.5) p = 0.007) and foundation (4.0 (1.6, 9.9) p = 0.003) schools were more likely to report being perpetrators of cyberbullying than students in mainstream academies. A school quality rating of “Good” was associated with greater reported bullying victimization (1.3 (1.02, 1.5) p = 0.03) compared to ratings of “Outstanding.”ConclusionsBullying victimization and cyberbullying prevalence vary across school type and school quality, supporting the hypothesis that organisational/management factors within the school may have an impact on students’ behaviour. These findings will inform future longitudinal research investigating which school factors and processes promote or prevent bullying and cyberbullying behaviours.Trial registrationTrial ID: ISRCTN10751359 Registered: 11/03/2014 (retrospectively registered).

Background: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) predict poorer mental health across the life course but most of the extant research has employed ACE scores or individual adversities using retrospective data. Objectives: To study the impact of ACEs on later mental health using not only ACEs scores and individual ACEs, but also latent class analysis (LCA), which respects the clustering of adversities. Participants and setting: 8823 members from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Methods: We investigated the impact of prospectively reported ACEs on mental health trajectories derived using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire at age 3, 5, 7, 11 and 14. Associations between LCA-derived ACE clusters, ACE scores, individual ACEs and mental health trajectories were tested using linear mixed effects models. Results: With statistical significance set at 5% level, ACE scores showed a graded association with internalizing (ACE score of 1: β = 0.057; ACE score of 2: β = 0.108; ACE score of 3: β = 0.202), externalizing (ACE score of 1: β = 0.142; ACE score of 2: β = 0.299; ACE score of 3: β = 0.415) and prosocial behaviors (ACE score of 1: β=-0.019; ACE score of 2: β=-0.042; ACE score of 3: β=-0.059). Harsh parenting and physical punishment were particularly strongly associated with externalizing (β = 0.270 and β = 0.256) and negatively associated with prosocial behaviors (β=-0.046 and β=-0.058). Parental discord and parental depression showed the strongest associations with internalizing problems (β = 0.125 and β = 0.113). LCA did not discriminate ACE clusters in this dataset. Conclusions: ACEs have an important impact on mental health from childhood to adolescence. ACEs score approach yielded useful results, which were further enhanced by exploring individual ACEs.

Education policy increasingly promotes action groups as a key strategy for student and/or staff participation in school improvement and whole‐school health promotion. Such groups can coordinate multi‐component interventions, increase participation and engagement, and enable local adaptations, but few process evaluations have assessed this. We evaluated fidelity, feasibility and acceptability of action groups as part of a trial of a whole‐school intervention to reduce bullying and aggression and promote health in English secondary schools, which reported multiple health and educational impacts. Action groups involved students and staff, supported by external facilitators, and drew on data on student needs. They aimed to: coordinate implementation of restorative practices and a social and emotional competencies curriculum; review policies and rules; and enact local decisions to modify school environments. Our process evaluation used interviews, focus groups, observations and questionnaires to assess action groups’ fidelity, role in coordination, role in local adaptation, support from external facilitators and data on student needs, and acceptability in engaging members. Fidelity was high in the first two years but lower in the third year when external facilitators withdrew. Student needs data were perceived as useful, but views on external facilitators were mixed. Groups successfully reviewed policies and rules, planned activities and coordinated restorative practices, but were less successful in implementing the curriculum. Success was facilitated by the involvement of school leaders. Members reported high satisfaction and empowerment. Action groups are a promising strategy for leading whole‐school health promotion. Implementation is supported by external facilitation, local data and involvement of senior managers.

Background Bullying, aggression and violence among children and young people are some of the most consequential public mental health problems. Objectives The INCLUSIVE (initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment) trial evaluated the Learning Together intervention, which involved students in efforts to modify their school environment using restorative approaches and to develop social and emotional skills. We hypothesised that in schools receiving Learning Together there would be lower rates of self-reported bullying and perpetration of aggression and improved student biopsychosocial health at follow-up than in control schools. Design INCLUSIVE was a cluster randomised trial with integral economic and process evaluations. Setting Forty secondary schools in south-east England took part. Schools were randomly assigned to implement the Learning Together intervention over 3 years or to continue standard practice (controls). Participants A total of 6667 (93.6%) students participated at baseline and 5960 (83.3%) students participated at final follow-up. No schools withdrew from the study. Intervention Schools were provided with (1) a social and emotional curriculum, (2) all-staff training in restorative approaches, (3) an external facilitator to help convene an action group to revise rules and policies and to oversee intervention delivery and (4) information on local needs to inform decisions. Main outcome measures Self-reported experience of bullying victimisation (Gatehouse Bullying Scale) and perpetration of aggression (Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime school misbehaviour subscale) measured at 36 months. Intention-to-treat analysis using longitudinal mixed-effects models. Results Primary outcomes – Gatehouse Bullying Scale scores were significantly lower among intervention schools than among control schools at 36 months (adjusted mean difference –0.03, 95% confidence interval –0.06 to 0.00). There was no evidence of a difference in Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime scores. Secondary outcomes – students in intervention schools had higher quality of life (adjusted mean difference 1.44, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.17) and psychological well-being scores (adjusted mean difference 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.66), lower psychological total difficulties (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) score (adjusted mean difference –0.54, 95% confidence interval –0.83 to –0.25), and lower odds of having smoked (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.80), drunk alcohol (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.92), been offered or tried illicit drugs (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.73) and been in contact with police in the previous 12 months (odds ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.97). The total numbers of reported serious adverse events were similar in each arm. There were no changes for staff outcomes. Process evaluation – fidelity was variable, with a reduction in year 3. Over half of the staff were aware that the school was taking steps to reduce bullying and aggression. Economic evaluation – mean (standard deviation) total education sector-related costs were £116 (£47) per pupil in the control arm compared with £163 (£69) in the intervention arm over the first two facilitated years, and £63 (£33) and £74 (£37) per pupil, respectively, in the final, unfacilitated, year. Overall, the intervention was associated with higher costs, but the mean gain in students’ health-related quality of life was slightly higher in the intervention arm. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was £13,284 (95% confidence interval –£32,175 to £58,743) and £1875 (95% confidence interval –£12,945 to £16,695) at 2 and 3 years, respectively. Limitations Our trial was carried out in urban and periurban settings in the counties around London. The large number of secondary outcomes investigated necessitated multiple statistical testing. Fidelity of implementation of Learning Together was variable. Conclusions Learning Together is effective across a very broad range of key public health targets for adolescents. Future work Further studies are required to assess refined versions of this intervention in other settings. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10751359. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Additional funding was provided by the Educational Endowment Foundation.

BackgroundWe have previously reported benefits for reduced bullying, smoking, alcohol and other drug use and mental health from a trial of ‘Learning Together’, an intervention that aimed to modify school environments and implement restorative practice and a social and emotional skill curriculum.ObjectivesTo conduct post hoc theory-driven analyses of broader impacts.DesignCluster randomised trial.Settings40 state secondary schools in southern England.ParticipantsStudents aged 11/12 years at baseline.OutcomesStudent self-reported measures at 24 and 36 months of: cyberbullying victimisation and perpetration; observations of other students perpetrating aggressive behaviours at school; own perpetration of aggressive behaviours in and outside school; perceived lack of safety at school; participation in school disciplinary procedures; truancy and e-cigarette use.ResultsWe found evidence of multiple impacts on other health (reduced e-cigarette use, cyberbullying perpetration, perpetration of aggressive behaviours) and educational (reduced participation in school disciplinary procedures and truancy) outcomes.ConclusionThese analyses suggested that the intervention was effective in bringing about a broader range of beneficial outcomes, adding to the evidence that the intervention is a promising approach to promote adolescent health via an intervention that is attractive to schools.Trial registration numberISRCTN10751359.