Supplementary file 3_Staff motivation and schools' capacities to sustain an intervention to prevent bullying and promote wellbeing in English secondary schools: a qualitative study.docx

IntroductionDiscontinuing effective school health interventions prevents new practices from reaching wider student populations and wastes investment in implementation. While reviews have consistently identified facilitators and barriers to the sustainment of school health interventions, the social processes underlying sustainment remain unclear. We explored the post-trial sustainment of “Learning Together,” a whole-school intervention, found to be effective in preventing bullying and promoting wellbeing in English secondary schools. We examined how staff and students described its sustainment in the 2 years post-trial, what factors staff referred to in explaining their motivation to sustain it, and how schools' capacities affected sustainment.
Methods and materialsLearning Together involved training staff in restorative practice (RP) and supporting schools to implement a staff-student action group and a social and emotional learning curriculum. Using a case-study design, we collected qualitative data from five schools: staff and student interviews 1-year post-trial; staff interviews 2 years post-trial; and descriptive data from the original trial's process evaluation. The General Theory of Implementation guided our thematic analysis.
ResultsNo school sustained the intervention in its entirety. RP was continued by some individuals in all schools and was sustained at school-level in one school. The curriculum and action groups were discontinued in all schools, although actions initiated by the groups were sustained in two schools. Staff motivation to sustain components was affected by their perceived effectiveness, and individual motivations to sustain RP differed from whole-school commitment to sustaining the approach. Schools' capacities to sustain Learning Together were affected by: the prioritization of academic learning time; the frequent implementation of new initiatives; the timeliness of interventions with school improvements plans; and leadership engagement. Schools needed support to disseminate RP knowledge and skills school-wide and ensure consistent practice, and turnover adversely impacted on knowledge transfer.
DiscussionSustainment was an intentional, labor-intensive, social process. Intervention developers should consider whether/how interventions are designed to work alongside, replace, or can refine existing practices, and should support schools to mainstream evidence-based interventions to sustain them at school-level.

引言：终止有效的学校健康干预项目，会阻碍新实践惠及更广泛的学生群体，同时浪费实施阶段的投入。尽管现有综述已明确识别出学校健康干预项目可持续性的促进因素与阻碍因素，但其背后的社会运作机制仍未明晰。本研究聚焦于“携手共进（Learning Together）”这一在英国中学中被证实可有效预防欺凌、提升学生福祉的全校干预（whole-school intervention）项目，探索其试验后可持续性情况。我们分析了教职员工与学生在试验结束后两年内对该项目可持续性的相关描述、教职员工用以阐释自身维持项目意愿的影响因素，以及学校办学能力如何对项目可持续性产生作用。
方法与材料：“携手共进”项目包含对教职员工开展恢复性实践（restorative practice，RP）培训，同时支持学校设立师生行动小组，并推行社会情感学习课程。本研究采用案例研究设计，从5所学校收集质性数据：包括试验结束1年后开展的教职员工与学生访谈、试验结束2年后开展的教职员工访谈，以及原始试验过程评估中的描述性数据。本研究以通用实施理论（General Theory of Implementation）为指导开展主题分析。
结果：所有学校均未完整维持该干预项目的全部内容。恢复性实践仅被部分教职员工在各校延续，且仅有1所学校将其维持为校级常规实践。所有学校均停止了社会情感学习课程与师生行动小组的运行，但其中2所学校保留了该小组此前发起的相关行动。教职员工维持项目细分内容的意愿受其感知到的项目有效性影响，且个体层面维持恢复性实践的动机，与校级层面推行该方法的承诺存在差异。学校维持“携手共进”项目的能力受以下因素影响：学术学习时间的优先级设定、新举措的频繁推行、干预项目与学校改进计划的契合时效性，以及领导层的参与度。学校需要获得支持以在全校范围内推广恢复性实践的知识与技能，并确保实践的一致性；同时人员流动对知识传递产生了负面影响。
讨论：项目可持续性是一项兼具目的性与劳动密集性的社会过程。干预项目开发者应考量项目设计是否、以及如何与现有实践并行、替代或优化现有实践，同时应支持学校将循证干预（evidence-based interventions）项目常规化，以实现校级层面的可持续维持。