Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Stronger social and emotional well-being during primary school is positively associated with the health and educational outcomes of young people. However, there is little evidence on which programmes are the most effective for improving social and emotional well-being.
UNASSIGNED: The objective was to rigorously evaluate the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) intervention process for improving pupils\' social and emotional well-being.
UNASSIGNED: This was a stratified cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. Thirty-eight primary schools were randomly assigned to the SEED intervention or to the control group. Hierarchical regression analysis allowing for clustering at school learning community level was conducted in R (statistical package).
UNASSIGNED: The SEED intervention is a whole-school intervention; it involved all school staff and two cohorts of pupils, one starting at 4 or 5 years of age and the second starting at 8 or 9 years of age, across all 38 schools.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 2639 pupils in Scotland.
UNASSIGNED: The SEED intervention used an iterative process that involved three components to facilitate selection and implementation of school-based actions: (1) questionnaire completion, (2) benchmarked feedback to all staff and (3) reflective discussions (all staff and an educational psychologist).
UNASSIGNED: The primary outcome was pupils\' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score when pupils were 4 years older than at baseline.
UNASSIGNED: The primary outcome, pupils\' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score at follow-up 3, showed improvements for intervention arm pupils, compared with those in the control arm [relative risk -1.30 (95% confidence interval -1.87 to -0.73), standardised effect size -0.27 (95% confidence interval -0.39 to -0.15)]. There was no evidence of intervention effects according to deprivation: the results were significant for both affluent and deprived pupils. Subgroup analysis showed that all effect sizes were larger for the older cohort, particularly boys [relative risk -2.36 (95% confidence interval -3.62 to -1.11), standardised effect size -0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.20)]. Although there was no statistically significant difference in incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year was high, at 88%. Particularly valued mechanisms of the SEED intervention were its provision of time to reflect on and discuss social and emotional well-being and its contribution to a culture of evaluating practice.
UNASSIGNED: It was a challenge to retain schools over five waves of data collection.
UNASSIGNED: This trial demonstrated that the SEED intervention is an acceptable, cost-effective way to modestly improve pupil well-being and improve school climate, particularly for older boys and those with greater levels of psychological difficulties. It was beneficial during the transition from primary to secondary school, but this diminished after 6 years. The SEED intervention can be implemented alongside existing systems for addressing pupil well-being and can be complementary to other interventions.
UNASSIGNED: Assess whether or not the SEED intervention has a beneficial impact on academic attainment, is transferable to other countries and other organisational settings, would be strengthened by adding core training elements to the intervention process and is transferable to secondary schools. Understand the gender differences illustrated by the outcomes of this trial. Conduct further statistical research on how to handle missing data in longitudinal studies of complex social interventions.
UNASSIGNED: This trial is registered as ISRCTN51707384.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 10/3006/13) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
We studied the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) primary school intervention to see if it could improve the social and emotional well-being of pupils in Scotland. The SEED intervention is a process with several elements. We collected information from school pupils, staff and parents, and assessed if the schools involved were happy, safe and caring environments. We sought to highlight any strengths or weaknesses in how each school approaches social and emotional well-being. The SEED intervention also measures the social and emotional well-being of pupils. This includes pupils’ strengths and difficulties, confidence, understanding of emotions and quality of relationships. We gave the information back to each school to help them decide what they can do to improve the social and emotional well-being of their pupils. We gave schools a guide to available resources, reviewed according to how well they are known to work elsewhere. The same social and emotional well-being measurements were repeated every 1 or 2 years, to see if any improvements had been made, and to guide any further adaptions of activities. The study ran in 38 schools over 7 years; half of the schools were randomly selected to receive the SEED intervention and half carried on as normal. Two age groups of pupils were recruited; the younger group was aged 4 or 5 years and the older group was aged 8 or 9 years at the start of the study. We found that the SEED intervention did slightly improve social and emotional well-being. Improvements were greater for older pupils, in particular for boys, and lasted beyond their transition from primary to secondary school. We also found that it was cost-effective for schools to run the SEED intervention. Schools valued the structure and shared ownership associated with the process. We concluded that the SEED intervention is an acceptable way to modestly improve pupil well-being and school ethos.
UNASSIGNED: The objective was to rigorously evaluate the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) intervention process for improving pupils\' social and emotional well-being.
UNASSIGNED: This was a stratified cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. Thirty-eight primary schools were randomly assigned to the SEED intervention or to the control group. Hierarchical regression analysis allowing for clustering at school learning community level was conducted in R (statistical package).
UNASSIGNED: The SEED intervention is a whole-school intervention; it involved all school staff and two cohorts of pupils, one starting at 4 or 5 years of age and the second starting at 8 or 9 years of age, across all 38 schools.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 2639 pupils in Scotland.
UNASSIGNED: The SEED intervention used an iterative process that involved three components to facilitate selection and implementation of school-based actions: (1) questionnaire completion, (2) benchmarked feedback to all staff and (3) reflective discussions (all staff and an educational psychologist).
UNASSIGNED: The primary outcome was pupils\' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score when pupils were 4 years older than at baseline.
UNASSIGNED: The primary outcome, pupils\' Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Total Difficulties Score at follow-up 3, showed improvements for intervention arm pupils, compared with those in the control arm [relative risk -1.30 (95% confidence interval -1.87 to -0.73), standardised effect size -0.27 (95% confidence interval -0.39 to -0.15)]. There was no evidence of intervention effects according to deprivation: the results were significant for both affluent and deprived pupils. Subgroup analysis showed that all effect sizes were larger for the older cohort, particularly boys [relative risk -2.36 (95% confidence interval -3.62 to -1.11), standardised effect size -0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.64 to -0.20)]. Although there was no statistically significant difference in incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years, the probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year was high, at 88%. Particularly valued mechanisms of the SEED intervention were its provision of time to reflect on and discuss social and emotional well-being and its contribution to a culture of evaluating practice.
UNASSIGNED: It was a challenge to retain schools over five waves of data collection.
UNASSIGNED: This trial demonstrated that the SEED intervention is an acceptable, cost-effective way to modestly improve pupil well-being and improve school climate, particularly for older boys and those with greater levels of psychological difficulties. It was beneficial during the transition from primary to secondary school, but this diminished after 6 years. The SEED intervention can be implemented alongside existing systems for addressing pupil well-being and can be complementary to other interventions.
UNASSIGNED: Assess whether or not the SEED intervention has a beneficial impact on academic attainment, is transferable to other countries and other organisational settings, would be strengthened by adding core training elements to the intervention process and is transferable to secondary schools. Understand the gender differences illustrated by the outcomes of this trial. Conduct further statistical research on how to handle missing data in longitudinal studies of complex social interventions.
UNASSIGNED: This trial is registered as ISRCTN51707384.
UNASSIGNED: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 10/3006/13) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
We studied the Social and Emotional Education and Development (SEED) primary school intervention to see if it could improve the social and emotional well-being of pupils in Scotland. The SEED intervention is a process with several elements. We collected information from school pupils, staff and parents, and assessed if the schools involved were happy, safe and caring environments. We sought to highlight any strengths or weaknesses in how each school approaches social and emotional well-being. The SEED intervention also measures the social and emotional well-being of pupils. This includes pupils’ strengths and difficulties, confidence, understanding of emotions and quality of relationships. We gave the information back to each school to help them decide what they can do to improve the social and emotional well-being of their pupils. We gave schools a guide to available resources, reviewed according to how well they are known to work elsewhere. The same social and emotional well-being measurements were repeated every 1 or 2 years, to see if any improvements had been made, and to guide any further adaptions of activities. The study ran in 38 schools over 7 years; half of the schools were randomly selected to receive the SEED intervention and half carried on as normal. Two age groups of pupils were recruited; the younger group was aged 4 or 5 years and the older group was aged 8 or 9 years at the start of the study. We found that the SEED intervention did slightly improve social and emotional well-being. Improvements were greater for older pupils, in particular for boys, and lasted beyond their transition from primary to secondary school. We also found that it was cost-effective for schools to run the SEED intervention. Schools valued the structure and shared ownership associated with the process. We concluded that the SEED intervention is an acceptable way to modestly improve pupil well-being and school ethos.
摘要：
■小学期间更强的社会和情感幸福感与年轻人的健康和教育成果呈正相关。然而,几乎没有证据表明哪些计划对改善社会和情感福祉最有效。
■目的是严格评估社会和情感教育与发展（SEED）干预过程，以改善学生的社会和情感福祉。
■这是一项具有嵌入过程和经济评估的分层整群随机对照试验。38所小学被随机分配到SEED干预组或对照组。在R（统计包）中进行了分层回归分析，允许在学校学习社区级别进行聚类。
■SEED干预是全校干预；它涉及所有学校工作人员和两组学生，一个从4岁或5岁开始，第二个从8岁或9岁开始，38所学校
■苏格兰共有2639名学生。
■SEED干预使用了一个迭代过程，该过程涉及三个组成部分，以促进选择和实施基于学校的行动：（1）问卷填写，（2）对所有员工的基准反馈和（3）反思讨论（所有员工和教育心理学家）。
■主要结果是学生的强度和困难问卷-当学生比基线时大4岁时的总困难评分。
■主要结果，学生优势和困难问卷-随访3时的总困难评分，显示干预手臂学生的改善，与对照组[相对危险度-1.30(95%置信区间-1.87至-0.73)相比，标准化效应大小-0.27（95%置信区间-0.39至-0.15）]。没有证据表明根据剥夺情况进行干预：结果对富裕和被剥夺的学生都很重要。亚组分析显示，对于年龄较大的队列，所有效应大小都较大，特别是男孩[相对风险-2.36（95%置信区间-3.62至-1.11），标准化效应大小-0.42（95%置信区间-0.64至-0.20）]。尽管增量成本和质量调整寿命年没有统计学上的显著差异，在每个质量调整生命年20,000英镑的支付意愿门槛下，干预措施具有成本效益的可能性很高，88%。SEED干预措施特别有价值的机制是它提供了时间来反思和讨论社会和情感福祉及其对评估实践文化的贡献。
■在五波数据收集中保留学校是一个挑战。
■该试验表明，种子干预是可以接受的，以具有成本效益的方式适度改善学生的福祉和改善学校氛围，特别是对于年龄较大的男孩和心理困难程度较大的男孩。在从小学到中学的过渡期间是有益的，但这在6年后减少了。SEED干预可以与解决学生福祉的现有系统一起实施，并且可以补充其他干预措施。
■评估种子干预是否对学业成绩产生有益影响，可转移到其他国家和其他组织设置，将通过在干预过程中增加核心培训要素来加强，并可转移到中学。了解本试验结果所说明的性别差异。在复杂的社会干预的纵向研究中，对如何处理缺失的数据进行进一步的统计研究。
■本试验注册为ISRCTN51707384。
■该奖项由美国国立卫生与护理研究所（NIHR）公共卫生研究计划（NIHR奖参考：10/3006/13）资助，并在《公共卫生研究》中全文发表。12号6.有关更多奖项信息，请参阅NIHR资助和奖励网站。
我们研究了社会和情感教育与发展（SEED）小学干预措施，以了解它是否可以改善苏格兰学生的社会和情感福祉。种子干预是一个具有几个要素的过程。我们从小学生那里收集信息，工作人员和家长，并评估相关学校是否快乐，安全和关怀的环境。我们试图强调每个学校如何处理社会和情感福祉的任何优点或缺点。SEED干预措施还可以衡量学生的社会和情感福祉。这包括学生的长处和困难，信心,对情感和人际关系质量的理解。我们将信息反馈给每所学校，以帮助他们决定可以做些什么来改善学生的社交和情感福祉。我们为学校提供了可用资源指南，根据他们在其他地方的工作情况进行审查。每1年或2年重复进行相同的社交和情感幸福感测量，看看是否有任何改进，并指导任何进一步的活动适应。这项研究在38所学校进行了7年；一半的学校被随机选择接受种子干预，一半的学校照常进行。招募了两个年龄组的学生；在研究开始时，年龄较小的组年龄为4或5岁，年龄较大的组年龄为8或9岁。我们发现，SEED干预确实略微改善了社交和情感幸福感。年龄较大的学生的改善更大，特别是对于男孩来说，并持续了他们从小学到中学的过渡。我们还发现，学校运行SEED干预措施具有成本效益。学校重视与该过程相关的结构和共享所有权。我们得出的结论是，SEED干预是适度改善学生福祉和学校精神的可接受方法。
■目的是严格评估社会和情感教育与发展（SEED）干预过程，以改善学生的社会和情感福祉。
■这是一项具有嵌入过程和经济评估的分层整群随机对照试验。38所小学被随机分配到SEED干预组或对照组。在R（统计包）中进行了分层回归分析，允许在学校学习社区级别进行聚类。
■SEED干预是全校干预；它涉及所有学校工作人员和两组学生，一个从4岁或5岁开始，第二个从8岁或9岁开始，38所学校
■苏格兰共有2639名学生。
■SEED干预使用了一个迭代过程，该过程涉及三个组成部分，以促进选择和实施基于学校的行动：（1）问卷填写，（2）对所有员工的基准反馈和（3）反思讨论（所有员工和教育心理学家）。
■主要结果是学生的强度和困难问卷-当学生比基线时大4岁时的总困难评分。
■主要结果，学生优势和困难问卷-随访3时的总困难评分，显示干预手臂学生的改善，与对照组[相对危险度-1.30(95%置信区间-1.87至-0.73)相比，标准化效应大小-0.27（95%置信区间-0.39至-0.15）]。没有证据表明根据剥夺情况进行干预：结果对富裕和被剥夺的学生都很重要。亚组分析显示，对于年龄较大的队列，所有效应大小都较大，特别是男孩[相对风险-2.36（95%置信区间-3.62至-1.11），标准化效应大小-0.42（95%置信区间-0.64至-0.20）]。尽管增量成本和质量调整寿命年没有统计学上的显著差异，在每个质量调整生命年20,000英镑的支付意愿门槛下，干预措施具有成本效益的可能性很高，88%。SEED干预措施特别有价值的机制是它提供了时间来反思和讨论社会和情感福祉及其对评估实践文化的贡献。
■在五波数据收集中保留学校是一个挑战。
■该试验表明，种子干预是可以接受的，以具有成本效益的方式适度改善学生的福祉和改善学校氛围，特别是对于年龄较大的男孩和心理困难程度较大的男孩。在从小学到中学的过渡期间是有益的，但这在6年后减少了。SEED干预可以与解决学生福祉的现有系统一起实施，并且可以补充其他干预措施。
■评估种子干预是否对学业成绩产生有益影响，可转移到其他国家和其他组织设置，将通过在干预过程中增加核心培训要素来加强，并可转移到中学。了解本试验结果所说明的性别差异。在复杂的社会干预的纵向研究中，对如何处理缺失的数据进行进一步的统计研究。
■本试验注册为ISRCTN51707384。
■该奖项由美国国立卫生与护理研究所（NIHR）公共卫生研究计划（NIHR奖参考：10/3006/13）资助，并在《公共卫生研究》中全文发表。12号6.有关更多奖项信息，请参阅NIHR资助和奖励网站。
我们研究了社会和情感教育与发展（SEED）小学干预措施，以了解它是否可以改善苏格兰学生的社会和情感福祉。种子干预是一个具有几个要素的过程。我们从小学生那里收集信息，工作人员和家长，并评估相关学校是否快乐，安全和关怀的环境。我们试图强调每个学校如何处理社会和情感福祉的任何优点或缺点。SEED干预措施还可以衡量学生的社会和情感福祉。这包括学生的长处和困难，信心,对情感和人际关系质量的理解。我们将信息反馈给每所学校，以帮助他们决定可以做些什么来改善学生的社交和情感福祉。我们为学校提供了可用资源指南，根据他们在其他地方的工作情况进行审查。每1年或2年重复进行相同的社交和情感幸福感测量，看看是否有任何改进，并指导任何进一步的活动适应。这项研究在38所学校进行了7年；一半的学校被随机选择接受种子干预，一半的学校照常进行。招募了两个年龄组的学生；在研究开始时，年龄较小的组年龄为4或5岁，年龄较大的组年龄为8或9岁。我们发现，SEED干预确实略微改善了社交和情感幸福感。年龄较大的学生的改善更大，特别是对于男孩来说，并持续了他们从小学到中学的过渡。我们还发现，学校运行SEED干预措施具有成本效益。学校重视与该过程相关的结构和共享所有权。我们得出的结论是，SEED干预是适度改善学生福祉和学校精神的可接受方法。
