The European Union Dataprev project reviewed work on mental health in four areas, parenting, schools, the workplace and older people. The schools workpackage carried out a systematic review of reviews of work on mental health in schools from which it identified evidence-based interventions and programmes and extracted the general principles from evidence-based work. A systematic search of the literature uncovered 52 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mental health in schools. The interventions identified by the reviews had a wide range of beneficial effects on children, families and communities and on a range of mental health, social, emotional and educational outcomes. The effect sizes associated with most interventions were generally small to moderate in statistical terms, but large in terms of real-world impacts. The effects associated with interventions were variable and their effectiveness could not always be relied on. The characteristics of more effective interventions included: teaching skills, focusing on positive mental health; balancing universal and targeted approaches; starting early with the youngest children and continuing with older ones; operating for a lengthy period of time and embedding work within a multi-modal/whole-school approach which included such features as changes to the curriculum including teaching skills and linking with academic learning, improving school ethos, teacher education, liaison with parents, parenting education, community involvement and coordinated work with outside agencies. Interventions were only effective if they were completely and accurately implemented: this applied particularly to whole-school interventions which could be ineffective if not implemented with clarity, intensity and fidelity. The implications for policy and practice around mental health in schools are discussed, including the suggestion of some rebalancing of priorities and emphases.

Accessible summary This article is about the ways people do research together. We talked with people doing inclusive research about their views and experiences. We found out about different ways people work together and how power is important. People talked about how inclusive research can change people's lives. We discuss why we think research can be performed inclusively in a variety of ways and why keeping this variety is important. Summary This article reports on a study of how people do research that matters to people with learning disabilities and that involves them and their views and experiences. The study was an attempt to bring together people doing inclusive research so that, collectively, we could take stock of our practices. This would add to the individual reports and reflections on approaches that are already available. In particular, we wanted to explore what quality means in inclusive research and how we might best achieve this. We used focus groups to share and generate knowledge, and we recorded, transcribed and analysed the dialogue, looking for themes and answers to core questions. We found that there are many different ways of doing research inclusively, and we propose a model to describe this. Reflecting on the findings, we argue that it is important to keep a flexible vision of inclusive research and to keep learning and talking together.

Interest in participatory research methods has grown considerably in the spheres of research with children and young people and research with people with learning disabilities. This growth is rooted in different but related paradigm shifts in childhood and disability. I argue that despite developments in participatory approaches, participatory data analysis has been attempted less than participation in other aspects of research with either children or people with learning disabilities, and that the challenges involved in this are particularly under-explored and important with the latter where we need to investigate what is possible. I discuss why participation in analysis is often neglected before reviewing different responses to the challenge including examples of informal and formal, unstructured and structured, trained and untrained, explicit and implicit approaches. Finally, I make the case for authentic reciprocal learning in exploring the potential benefits of participatory analysis to people and to research.

To cite this article: M. Nind (1996) Efficacy of Intensive Interaction: developing sociability and communication in people with severe and complex learning difficulties using an approach based on caregiver-infant interaction, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 11:1, 48-66, ABSTRACTIntensive Interaction was developed as a teaching approach for students who experienced severe difficulties in learning and in relating to others. The approach recognizes the pre-verbal nature of the learners and addresses their need to develop the very beginnings of sociability and communication. Intensive Interaction is based on the process of caregiver-infant interaction in which the first stages of sociability and communication develop. This paper summarizes the first major study of Intensive Interaction which investigated whether it could similarly facilitate this fundamental social and communication development in the target group of people with severe developmental disabilities who demonstrated ritualistic behaviours. A multiple baseline across subjects interrupted time-series design was employed and the six subjects were all residents of a long-stay hospital. The measures included real-time observation schedules, video analysis, Kiernan and Reid's Pre-Verbal Communication Schedule and an adaptation of Brazelton's Cuddliness Scale. Results showed improved pre-communication and informal communication abilities, 'cuddliness' and ability to maintain and initiate social contact, and a trend towards reduction in ritualistic behaviour.

In light of calls to improve the capacity for social science research within UK higher education, this article explores the possibilities for an emerging pedagogy for research methods. A lack of pedagogical culture in this field has been identified by previous studies. In response, we examine pedagogical literature surrounding approaches for teaching and learning research methods that are evident in recent peer-reviewed literature. Deep reading of this literature (as opposed to systematic review) identifies different but generally complementary ways in which teachers of methods seek to elucidate aspects of the research process, provide hands-on experience and facilitate critical reflection. At a time when the advancement of research capacity is gaining prominence, both in the academy and in reference to the wider knowledge economy, this paper illustrates how teachers of methods are considering pedagogical questions and seeks to further stimulate debates in this area.