Coproduction of an psychosis anti-stigma module for schools
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Working with people with experience of psychosis to coproduce an educational and anti-stigma psychosis intervention for schools.
IRAS ID
315902
Contact name
Mike Jackson
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Bangor University
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 0 months, 1 days
Research summary
The key aim of this research is the creation of a psychosis educational and anti-stigma module to integrate into already existing anti-stigma programme in schools (The Guide Cymru). This programme has been adapted by Action for Children (AfC)from an existing intervention developed and evaluated in Canada (Mcluckie et al., 2014), and is currently undergoing evaluation in adolescents aged 13-14 (Simkiss et al., 2020). The programme is teacher-led, with initial training and refresher courses provided by AfC.
Schools have been identified by the government as ideal settings for mental health prevention (HM Government, 2018) as well as being important contributors to mitigating mental health risk and improving resilience (Stewart-Brown, 2006). Although, there have been numerous mental illness anti-stigma programmes conducted in schools, there is a comparative dearth of education around psychosis, which is troubling considering psychosis is a leading cause of disability worldwide (Rössler et al., 2005). This study is part of a collaborative project between Bangor University and Action for Children. Co-production is increasingly seen as best practice when developing services which affect the group in question (Church et al., 2013; Wait & Noite, 2006).
We will draw on good practice when co-producing the module (Hagen et al., 2012), and will use an evaluated tool to report on the co-production process (The GRIPP-2 checklist: Staniszewska et al., 2017). Examples of good practice include: ensuring that people feel valued and needed, and receive something back for contributing (reciprocity); that everyone has the ability to contribute on an equal basis (accessibility) and that everyone in the group is equal and has something to bring to the process (equality).
The module design process will involve up to six workshops, each involving services-users (n = up to 10) and facilitators (n=2/3; Principal Investigator (PI) (WP), Chief Investigator (CI) (MJ) and a Masters student taking notes). Service-users will be recruited through a local Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) advisory group. Service-users will be involved in both the defining what components the module should contain as well as its specific contents. Experts by experience will be required to be over 18. They will be assessed for their capacity to consent before and during participation and extra support will be provided by the EIPs service if needed.
The research is funded by an ESRC-DTP studentship and the Principal Investigator (PI) has completed some early preparatory work including a systematic review and meta- analysis work to inform the development of the module. Blomkamp (2018) suggests 4 stages for co-design, the preparatory work constitutes stage 1 of this process (i.e. reviewing existing psychosis anti-stigma interventions and identifying core components as well existing material targeted at young people). This will be used to inform the second stage of the process (Define). In this stage the experts by experience will consider the research questions and co-produce an outline of desired contents in the early workshops. Subsequent workshops will work on co-creating and defining the relevant content.
Outputs from this work will be a co-produced psychosis education and anti-stigma module. After the module has been created, two version may be created for 1) use in teacher training and for 2) use with adolescents.
Blomkamp, E. (2018). The promise of co‐design for public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(4), 729-743.
Church, J., Saunders, D., Wanke, M., Pong, R., Spooner, C., & Dorgan, M. (2002). Citizen participation in health decision-making: past experience and future prospects. Journal of public health policy, 23(1), 12-32.
Hagen, P., Collin, P., Metcalf, A., Nicholas, M., Rahilly, K., & Swainston, N. (2012). Participatory design of evidence-based online youth mental health promotion, intervention and treatment.
HM Government. (2018). Government Response to the Consultation on Transforming Children and Young People’s Mental Health Provision: a Green Paper and Next Steps. Department of Health and Social Care & Department of Education.
Mcluckie, A., Kutcher, S., Wei, Y., & Weaver, C. (2014). Sustained improvements in students’ mental health literacy with use of a mental health curriculum in Canadian schools. BMC psychiatry, 14(1), 1-6
Rössler, W., Salize, H. J., Van Os, J., & Riecher-Rössler, A. (2005). Size of burden of schizophrenia and psychotic disorders. European neuropsychopharmacology, 15(4), 399-409.
Simkiss, N. J., Gray, N. S., Malone, G., Kemp, A., & Snowden, R. J. (2020). Improving mental health literacy in year 9 high school children across Wales: a protocol for a randomised control treatment trial (RCT) of a mental health literacy programme across an entire country. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1-8
Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., ... & Tysall, C. (2017). GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. bmj, 358.
Stewart-Brown, S. (2006). What is the Evidence on School Health Promotion in Improving Health Orpreventing Disease And, Specifically, what is the Effectiveness of the Health Promoting Schools Approach?. World Health Organization.
Wait, S., & Nolte, E. (2006). Public involvement policies in health: exploring their conceptual basis. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 1(2), 149-162.
REC name
Wales REC 5
REC reference
22/WA/0258
Date of REC Opinion
23 Sep 2022
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion