Supporting Students: A GRADE Analysis of the Research on Student Wellness and Classroom Mental Health Support

Abstract

Recommendations derived from research evidence regarding program implementation in school-based mental health [SBMH] require knowledge of the intervention outcomes as well as the potential to translate program components into schools. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis was applied to major areas of the SBMH literature in addressing the areas of effectiveness and the strength of recommendation in implementation. Nine areas were addressed: emotional intelligence, stigma reduction, mindfulness, anxiety, depression, addictions, suicide prevention, trauma, and eating disorders. Ninetyeight studies were retrieved across the nine areas. Effect sizes based on reported outcomes and estimates on the strength of recommendation were generated in each of the nine areas of interest. These results provide an overview of the quality of the evidence that will be of relevance to school personal in making program selections.

Seeing Race in the Research on Youth Trauma and Education: A Critical Review

“…A third macrolevel support refers to various intervention programs aimed at mitigating the impact of youth trauma (Ford, Steinberg, et al, 2012; Scheeringa et al, 2011). Indeed, to synthesize three recent systematic reviews of school-based intervention programs across 171 articles (with some overlapping studies), it appears that long-term programs with a codified curriculum that is co-constructed with caregivers and delivered by trained staff are most effective, although what is still needed are better frameworks for implementing and measuring effectiveness of said programs and protocols for more precise analysis of participant demographics (Rodger et al, 2019; Thomas et al, 2019; Yohannan & Carlson, 2019). Unfortunately, I found that when the primary focus is on investigating the best program intervention, studies minimize underlying racialization problems or imply that race is inconsequential to understanding and responding to students’ trauma-related experiences.…”

“…Unfortunately, I found that when the primary focus is on investigating the best program intervention, studies minimize underlying racialization problems or imply that race is inconsequential to understanding and responding to students’ trauma-related experiences. For example, using a race-centered analysis, I found that 85% of the 21 U.S. study samples ( n = 1,359) in Yohannan and Carlson’s (2019) review were composed of students of color; yet almost no intervention programs in the 98 studies Rodger et al (2019) reviewed were specifically designed for students of color.…”

“…This review builds on recent reviews of trauma (Rodger et al, 2019; Thomas et al, 2019; Yohannan & Carlson, 2019) and extends this body of scholarship by illuminating the ways in which dominant discourse on trauma prioritizes and rationalizes a structurally racist and White supremacist pathological narrative. In this section, I address three interrelated points that warrant an expanded discussion.…”

“…In addition to improving race-conscious protocols and metrics, there is also a need to establish criterion for assessing trauma intervention program effectiveness (Thomas et al, 2019). In general, the literature finds that effective programs tend to be long term, use a manualized curriculum that is co-constructed with caregivers and delivered by trained staff (Rodger et al, 2019). However, some empirical questions for future work might explore how structural racism interacts with program participation or the extent to which caregivers are permitted to contribute to program development and curriculum.…”

“…However, the first of these reviews stressed a critical need to understand and recognize the impact of youth trauma on school functioning (De Pedro et al, 2011; McBrien, 2005; Perfect et al, 2016; Sullivan & Simonson, 2016). Additionally, subsequent systematic reviews on youth trauma have contributed to the body of scholarship by exploring effective trauma-based interventions; in short, these reviews have recommended that trauma-based interventions (a) use codified curricula that are co-constructed with caregivers for contextual specificity, (b) be delivered by trained staff, and (c) incorporate more intersectional data points for analyses of program and student success outcomes (Rodger et al, 2019; Thomas et al, 2019; Yohannan & Carlson, 2019). Collectively, this growing body of scholarship on youth trauma in educational contexts has generated sizeable concern among school-based actors, while also underscoring a need for stronger interdisciplinary work that can advance future discoveries about equitable resources, programs, and practices for improving success outcomes among trauma-exposed youth in U.S. schools.…”