Overview of research design

Phase two gathered the views and experiences of various stakeholders involved in the

Healthy Schools Programme. This included analysis of interview and focus group data

collected over the course of the HSP implementation as well as documentary review and analysis of material relating to the HS programme. Semi-structured one-to-one interviews and focus groups were considered most suited to the research given the focus on eliciting perceptions and experiences of key HS stakeholders. These individual interviews provided a useful forum to discuss with relevant participants experiences of the HSP planning and implementation process in detail. Focus groups with parents and staff were also completed as it was a convenient method of engaging with a larger

101 number of individuals without overburdening the schools. An additional textual analysis of the HS manual was also deemed appropriate as the HSP was based on this document and programme design was a key consideration.

5.2.2 Participants and settings

Participants were identified using theoretical sampling with the aim of gaining a diverse range of views of the HSP. Individuals were invited to take part by the researcher and were fully informed of the research study (details of the ethical procedure are detailed in Chapter Four).

(a) HSCs (n=3) and Principals (n=7) were interviewed at the end of each year of implementation to explore how the programme was rolled out in the schools. A number of staff changes occurred throughout the course of the evaluation period in which case, replacement members of staff were invited to participate. All invited participants agreed to take part in the interview process.

(b) At the end of the baseline year, HSC and principal interviews indicated that the HS funders were actively involved in programme implementation. A decision was subsequently made to interview key members of the funding team (n=2) at the end of year 1 and year 2 to ensure that a range of relevant views and experiences were explored by the study. As with the school-based interviewees, all invitees participated in the study.

(c) Health and education professionals involved in the HS programme (in some aspects of design, planning and/or implementation) were interviewed at the end of year 2 of programme implementation by the researcher to examine their retrospective views on the efficacy of the programme to address psychological well-being. This included a Department of Education professional (n=1) and a HSE health professional (n=1)11.

(d) A number of focus groups (n=4) also took place at the end of year 2 to explore teaching staff and parents’ retrospective views and experiences of the programme. In total, 16 parents participated in two parent focus groups and 18 school staff participated in two teaching staff focus groups. Family members can prove difficult

11 _{Two additional health professionals were invited to take part in the interviews. One potential} participant had taken maternity leave during the evaluation period and was not available for interview. The second potential participant had retired in the final year of programme implementation and chose not to respond to the researcher’s request.

102 to engage with the research process and the researcher was also aware of time constraints experienced by many school staff. Thus, focus groups were considered a more appropriate, convenient, and efficient method of data collection. It is acknowledged that selection bias was a possible issue as individuals who agreed to take part are more likely to be parents and school staff who were most engaged with the HSP. Nevertheless, an important component of the study was to explore the experiences of individuals who were aware of the HSP and thus, it was considered appropriate that these individuals were identified for participation in the study.

103 Table 5.2: Overview of participants involved in the process evaluation

5.2.3 Eligibility

Participants were identified by the researcher and invited to take part if:

1. The participant was involved in the design, planning or implementation of the Healthy Schools;

2. The Healthy Schools programme was rolled out in a school in which the participant worked; and

3. The participant was a parent/guardian of a child attending a HSP participating school.

12

A total of four retrospective focus groups were completed at the end of year two. In total, 48

participants took part in these groups. Participants who completed an individual interview were not part of the focus groups.

Baseline 2008/2009 (n) Year 1 2009/2010 (n) Year 2 2010/2011 (n) Total participants (n)

Semi-structured one-to-one Interviews

Healthy School’s Co-ordinators Interviews*

2 3 2 3*

Principal Interviews* 4 5 5 7*

HSP funder Interviews 0 2 2 2

Health and Educational Professional Interviews

0 1 1 2

Total 6 11 10 14

Focus groups

Parent focus groups n/a n/a 2 16

Teaching staff focus groups n/a n/a 2 18

Total12 n/a n/a 4 48

Meeting minute notes

Steering Committee

Meeting observation notes (i.e. number of meetings observed)

1 4 4 n/a

Documents analysed

Funder Annual Reports & audits x4 Healthy School Programme manual

104 5.2.4 Measures

5.2.4.1 One-to-one semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders

Follow-up interviews were completed with participants who were directly involved in the planning and implementation of the HS programme (i.e. healthy school coordinators, principals). These interviews were completed at the end of each school year (i.e. at the end of the baseline year, end of year one, and end of year two). As previously mentioned, initial baseline interviews with HSCs and principals identified the direct involvement of the HS funders in the planning and implementation of the HSP. Consequently, the researcher decided to interview members of the funding team in subsequent follow-up years (i.e. at the end of year one and year two).

Baseline interviews with HSCs and principals also highlighted that, as the programme was only beginning to be implemented at the end of the baseline year, many of these participants were only able to provide limited responses to questions. As a result, a decision was made not to interview all other stakeholders (i.e. teachers and parents, professional stakeholders) at this stage, as many were not yet even aware that the HSP was being implemented in their school. Consequently, these stakeholders were only interviewed in the final year of the evaluation period. Retrospective interview schedules were designed to explore the views and experiences of the key stakeholders in relation to how the HSP had addressed the health and psychological well-being of primary school-aged children. All semi-structured interview schedules for this cohort included specific questions relating to how the HSP addressed psychological health as well as broader questions concerning the efficacy of the HSP in general (see Appendix 5.3).

5.2.4.2 Parents and teaching staff focus groups

Four focus groups were conducted in collaboration with the wider Healthy Schools evaluation and questions relating to psychological well-being specifically were included along with questions relating to the roll out of the HSP in general.

5.2.4.3 Documentary analysis

A documentary analysis of the HS manual was completed to assess the design, planning and implementation of the programme. The theoretical underpinnings of the manual were examined and compared to the health promoting school literature. In addition, a review of the HSP funders’ policy documents and end of year reports were examined

105 (i.e. CDI, 2004; CDI, 2005; Keogh, 2007; Report of the CDI Stakeholder Consultation Process, 2005). The notes of Healthy School steering committee meetings were also collated by the researcher as they occurred over the course of programme implementation. These consisted of the main discussion points which arose during meetings as well as views and opinions indicated by individuals in attendance. These notes were used to supplement the views of HS stakeholders.

The final data collection period occurred at the end of the third year of implementation (i.e. year 2). This cut-off for data collection was chosen as, when asked at the beginning of year 2, the funding team were unable to confirm to the research team whether the HSP funding (and thus the HSP) would continue beyond this period.