Hull 2021.
| Study characteristics | |
| Methods |
Study design: cluster‐RCT Duration of study: the study was conducted from early September 2011 to late May 2012. Country: Belize Income classification: upper‐middle income country in 2011‐2012 Geographical scope: Belize District Healthcare setting: schools |
| Participants | 1. Age: students aged 7‐9 years (standards 1‐3) and 10‐12 years (standards 4‐6) 2. Gender: both 3. Socioeconomic background: not specified 4. Educational background: students Inclusion criteria: each school was requested to participate for the duration of an entire school year with the understanding at the outset that there was a 50% probability any school may or may not be selected to implement the Positive Action programme. Exclusion criteria: not specified. Note: at baseline, the intervention and control group scores for the Behaviour Assessment Systems for Children (BASC) were, respectively, 12.73 (2.55) and 12.69 (2.55). Stated purpose: to examine post‐treatment positive youth development competencies (i.e. social‐emotional character development, peer affiliation, substance abuse and violence tendencies, moral beliefs, pro‐social behaviour, and school self‐esteem) in comparison to students in a randomly assigned control group of schools. The research question was: do students exposed to treatment in the form of Positive Action exhibit higher post‐treatment positive youth development competencies than students in a randomly assigned control group of schools? |
| Interventions |
Name: Positive Action programme Title/name of PW and number: school teachers 1. Selection: not specified 2. Educational background: not specified 3. Training: teacher training programme related to social‐emotional/character development or behaviour management 4. Supervision: not specified 5. Incentives/remuneration: not specified Prevention type: indicated – participants presented with some level of distress as indicated by the BASC. Intervention details: Positive Action programme to address the physical, intellectual, social, and emotional domains that interact with different ecologies of the child: school, family, and community. This is grounded in the Theory of Triadic Influence (TTI). Whole‐school implementation across classrooms and grades [6 units], as well as parent resources so that transformation occurred in more than one setting—school, home, and family. Parent education occurred at the intervened schools on parent night, once per month at each school, led by social workers using instructions and activities from the 42 (30 to 45 minute) lessons in the Positive Action Family Kit. Social workers assigned to each school utilized Positive Action’s Bullying Prevention kit and Conflict Resolution kit for pull‐out instruction with children that met a higher tier of need for intervention. Control: usual care (Health and Family Life Education curriculum) |
| Outcomes |
Participants’outcomes of interest for this review
Carers’ outcomes of interest for this review Nil Economic outcomes Nil Time points: baseline, post‐intervention (< 1 month) |
| Notes |
Source of funding: Inter‐American Development Bank and the Government of Japan Notes on validation of instruments (screening and outcomes): validated questionnaires Additional information: none Handling the data: not applicable Prospective trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03026335 |