Exploring mechanisms and contexts in a Peer Education Project to improve mental health literacy in schools in England: a qualitative realist evaluation.

Poor adolescent mental health calls for universal prevention. The Mental Health Foundation's 'Peer Education Project' equips older students ('peer educators') to teach younger students ('peer learners') about mental health. The peer-led lessons cover defining good and bad mental health, risk and protective factors, self-care, help-seeking and looking after one another. While previous pre-post evaluations have suggested effectiveness, the mechanisms through which the intervention improves mental health literacy remain unclear. We purposively recruited seven secondary schools across England from 2020 to 2022 and collected data through five observations, 12 staff interviews and 15 student focus groups (totalling 134 students; 46 peer educators aged 14-18 years and 88 peer learners aged 11-13 years). Our realist analysis adopted retroductive logic, intertwining deductive and inductive approaches to test the initial programme theory against insights arising from the data. We developed Context-Mechanisms-Outcome configurations related to four themes: (i) modelling behaviours and forming supportive relationships, (ii) relevant and appropriate content, (iii) peer educators feeling empowered and (iV) a school culture that prioritises mental health support. Our refined programme theory highlights key mechanisms, contexts conducive to achieving the outcomes and ways to improve training, recruitment and delivery to maximise effectiveness for similar peer-led initiatives.

'DrinkThink' alcohol screening and brief intervention for young people: a qualitative evaluation of training and implementation.

Background: Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention (ASBI) helps reduce risky drinking in adults, but less is known about its effectiveness with young people. This article explores implementation of DrinkThink, an ASBI co-produced with young people, by health, youth and social care professionals trained in its delivery. Methods: A qualitative evaluation was conducted using focus groups with 33 staff trained to deliver DrinkThink, and eight interviews with trained participants and service managers. These were recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken. Results: DrinkThink was not delivered fully by health, youth or social care agencies. The reasons for this varied by setting but included: the training staff received, a working culture that was ill-suited to the intervention, staff attitudes towards alcohol which prioritized other health problems presented by young people, over alcohol use. Conclusions: Implementation was limited because staff had not been involved in the design and planning of DrinkThink. Staffs' perceptions of alcohol problems in young people and the diverse cultures in which they work were subsequently not accounted for in the design. Co-producing youth focused ASBIs with the professionals expected to deliver them, and the young people whom they target, may ensure greater success in integrating them into working practice.

Clinical decision-making in a multidisciplinary gynaecological cancer team: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the factors that influence treatment decision-making in a gynaecological cancer team (MDT). DESIGN: Qualitative study using interviews and observations. SETTING: Gynaecological cancer MDT meetings and participants' offices. SAMPLE: A gynaecological cancer MDT and members of that team. METHODS: Observations of ten MDT meetings and semistructured interviews with 16 team members. Data analysis using the constant comparison technique of grounded theory and ethnography. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Factors affecting treatment decisions in the MDT meetings. RESULTS: Disease-centred information was central to decision-making, whereas patient-centred factors such as patient choice and co-morbidity were more peripheral. This was partly due to variation in team members' type and level of participation: senior clinicians occupied the most dominant roles in discussions and decision-making, whereas nurses contributed less but were more likely to focus on patient-related factors. Three main decision-making pathways emerged: a short discussion followed by a clear decision, a prolonged discussion ending in a definite treatment plan, and a lengthy discussion with no clearly stated decision at the end. The type of pathway followed depended on a case's complexity and the extent of agreement among team members. CONCLUSIONS: The process of treatment decision-making was not consistent for all women but was affected by factors such as the complexity of the case, which team members participated, and the extent of team members' agreement. Improvements are needed to ensure patient-centred information is included for all women and that clear decisions are reached and recorded in all cases.