Delivery of a Mental Health First Aid training package and staff peer support service in secondary schools: a process evaluation of uptake and fidelity of the WISE intervention

Mental Health First Aid as a tool for improving mental health and well-being

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of mental health problems is high, and they have a wide-ranging and deleterious effect on many sectors in society. As well as the impact on individuals and families, mental health problems in the workplace negatively affect productivity. One of the factors that may exacerbate the impact of mental health problems is a lack of 'mental health literacy' in the general population. This has been defined as 'knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders, which aid their recognition, management, or prevention'. Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) is a brief training programme developed in Australia in 2000; its aim is to improve mental health literacy and teach mental health first aid strategies. The course has been adapted for various contexts, but essentially covers the symptoms of various mental health disorders, along with associated mental health crisis situations. The programmes also teach trainees how to provide immediate help to people experiencing mental health difficulties, as well as how to signpost to professional services. It is theorised that improved knowledge will encourage the trainees to provide support, and encourage people to actively seek help, thereby leading to improvements in mental health. This review focuses on the effects of MHFA on the mental health and mental well-being of individuals and communities in which MHFA training has been provided. We also examine the impact on mental health literacy. This information is essential for decision-makers considering the role of MHFA training in their organisations.

OBJECTIVES

To examine mental health and well-being, mental health service usage, and adverse effects of MHFA training on individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered.

SEARCH METHODS

We developed a sensitive search strategy to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of MHFA training. This approach used bibliographic databases searching, using a search strategy developed for Ovid MEDLINE (1946 -), and translated across to Ovid Embase (1974 -), Ovid PsycINFO (1967 -), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialised Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched online clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP), grey literature and reference lists of included studies, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies. Searches are current to 13th June 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs comparing any type of MHFA-trademarked course to no intervention, active or attention control (such as first aid courses), waiting list control, or alternative mental health literacy interventions. Participants were individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered and MHFA trainees. Primary outcomes included mental health and well-being of individuals, mental health service usage and adverse effects of MHFA training. Secondary outcomes related to individuals, MHFA trainees, and communities or organisations in which MHFA training has been delivered DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled data using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently assessed the key results using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and applied the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of evidence MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies involving a total of 22,604 participants were included in the review. Fifteen studies compared MHFA training with no intervention/waiting list, two studies compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention, and four studies compared MHFA training with an active or an attention control intervention. Our primary time point was between six and 12 months. When MHFA training was compared with no intervention, it may have little to no effect on the mental health of individuals at six to 12 months, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.28; 3 studies; 3939 participants). We judged all the results that contributed to this outcome as being at high risk of bias. No study measured mental health service usage at six to 12 months. We did not find published data on adverse effects. Only one study with usable data compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention. The study did not measure outcomes in individuals in the community. It also did not measure outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months. Four studies with usable data compared MHFA training to an active or attention control. None of the studies measured outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot draw conclusions about the effects of MHFA training on our primary outcomes due to the lack of good quality evidence. This is the case whether it is compared to no intervention, to an alternative mental health literacy intervention, or to an active control. Studies are at high risk of bias and often not sufficiently large to be able to detect differences.

Mental Health First Aid: A Systematic Review of Trainee Behavior and Recipient Mental Health Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) is a globally disseminated course that trains members of the public to recognize and respond to mental health issues in their communities. Although substantial evidence suggests that MHFA training is associated with positive changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intent, little is known about how MHFA trainee-delivered aid supports mental health needs. This systematic review sought to summarize the extant research evaluating MHFA trainees' helping behaviors and the impacts of these behaviors on people experiencing a mental health problem (i.e., recipients).

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for MHFA evaluations published before or on March 9, 2021. Studies that evaluated at least one outcome related to trainee helping behavior or recipient mental health were included in the synthesis. Outcomes were organized into three categories: trainee use of MHFA skills, helpfulness of trainees' actions, and recipients' mental health. Only studies that compared pre- and posttraining outcomes, included a control group, and directly evaluated MHFA were used to assess its efficacy.

RESULTS

The search identified 31 studies, nine of which met criteria to assess MHFA efficacy. The findings of the nine studies indicated that MHFA had mixed effects on trainees using the skills taught in the course and no effects on the helpfulness of trainees' actions or on recipient mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that there is insufficient current evidence that MHFA improves the helping behaviors of trainees or the mental health of those receiving helping behaviors. They highlight a crucial research gap that should be prioritized as MHFA continues to grow in popularity.

Wellbeing in Secondary Education (WISE) Study to Improve the Mental Health and Wellbeing of Teachers: A Complex System Approach to Understanding Intervention Acceptability

Teaching staff report poorer mental health and wellbeing than the general working population. Intervention to address this issue is imperative, as poor wellbeing is associated with burnout, presenteeism, and adverse student mental health outcomes. The Wellbeing in Secondary Education (WISE) intervention is a secondary school-based programme aimed at improving the mental health and wellbeing of teachers and students. There are three components: awareness-raising for staff; a peer support service delivered by staff trained in Mental Health First Aid (MHFA); and Schools and Colleges Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training for teachers. A cluster randomised controlled trial with integrated process and economic evaluation was conducted with 25 secondary schools in the UK (2016-2018). The intervention was largely ineffective in improving teacher mental health and wellbeing. This paper reports process evaluation data on acceptability to help understand this outcome. It adopts a complex systems perspective, exploring how acceptability is a dynamic and contextually contingent concept. Data sources were as follows: interviews with funders (n = 3); interviews with MHFA trainers (n = 6); focus groups with peer supporters (n = 8); interviews with headteachers (n = 12); and focus groups with teachers trained in Schools and Colleges MHFA (n = 7). Results indicated that WISE intervention components were largely acceptable. Initially, the school system was responsive, as it had reached a 'tipping point' and was prepared to address teacher mental health. However, as the intervention interacted with the complexities of the school context, acceptability became more ambiguous. The intervention was seen to be largely inadequate in addressing the structural determinants of teacher mental health and wellbeing (e.g. complex student and staff needs, workload, and system culture). Future teacher mental health interventions need to focus on coupling skills training and support with whole school elements that tackle the systemic drivers of the problem.

An intervention to improve teacher well-being support and training to support students in UK high schools (the WISE study): A cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Teachers are at heightened risk of poor mental health and well-being, which is likely to impact on the support they provide to students, and student outcomes. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial, to test whether an intervention to improve mental health support and training for high school teachers led to improved mental health and well-being for teachers and students, compared to usual practice. We also conducted a cost evaluation of the intervention.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The intervention comprised (i) Mental Health First Aid training for teachers to support students; (ii) a mental health awareness session; and (iii) a confidential staff peer support service. In total 25 mainstream, non-fee-paying secondary schools stratified by geographical area and free school meal entitlement were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 12) or control group (n = 13) after collection of baseline measures. We analysed data using mixed-effects repeated measures models in the intention-to-treat population, adjusted for stratification variables, sex, and years of experience. The primary outcome was teacher well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). Secondary outcomes were teacher depression, absence, and presenteeism, and student well-being, mental health difficulties, attendance, and attainment. Follow-up was at months 12 (T1) and 24 (T2). We collected process data to test the logic model underpinning the intervention, to aid interpretation of the findings. A total of 1,722 teachers were included in the primary analysis. Teacher well-being did not differ between groups at T2 (intervention mean well-being score 47.5, control group mean well-being score 48.4, adjusted mean difference -0.90, 95% CI -2.07 to 0.27, p = 0.130). The only effect on secondary outcomes was higher teacher-reported absence among the intervention group at T2 (intervention group median number of days absent 0, control group median number of days absent 0, ratio of geometric means 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.09, p = 0.042). Process measures indicated little change in perceived mental health support, quality of relationships, and work-related stress. The average cost of the intervention was £9,103 per school. The study's main limitations were a lack of blinding of research participants and the self-report nature of the outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed no improvements to teacher or student mental health following the intervention, possibly due to a lack of impact on key drivers of poor mental health within the school environment. Future research should focus on structural and cultural changes to the school environment, which may be more effective at improving teacher and student mental health and well-being.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.isrctn.com ISRCTN95909211.