Abstract
Objectives To co-produce a school-based protocol and examine acceptability and feasibility of collecting saliva samples for genetic studies from young adolescent students in schools for the purpose of mental health research.
Design Protocol co-production and mixed-methods feasibility pilot. Setting: Secondary schools in Wales, UK.
Participants Year 7 and 8 secondary school students (aged 11-13 years) from schools in the School Health Research Network.
Primary and secondary outcome measures Co-produced research protocol including an interactive science workshop delivered in schools; school, parental and student recruitment rates; adherence to protocol and adverse events; ability to extract and genotype saliva samples; student enjoyment of the science workshop; and teacher views of acceptability and feasibility (qualitative analysis of focus groups).
Results Five schools participated in the co-production phase, and three of these took part in the research study. Four further schools were approached subsequently, but none participated. The eligible sample in the three participating schools included 868 children. Parental opt-in consent was received from 98 parents (11.3% eligible sample), three parents (0.3%) actively refused and responses were not received for 767 (88.4%) parents. Of those providing opt-in consent, we obtained saliva samples plus consent for data linkage for 79 (80.6%) students. Only one sample was unable to be genotyped due to insufficient quantity of saliva. Feedback on the study protocol showed that the science workshop was viewed as valuable by schools and received positive feedback from students. Feedback from teachers showed that undertaking research like this in schools is viewed as acceptable in principle, potentially feasible, but that there are important procedural barriers to be overcome. Key recommendations include establishing close working relationships between the research team and school classroom staff, together with improved methods for engaging parents.
Conclusions There are major challenges to undertaking large scale genetic mental health research in schools. Such research may be acceptable in principle, and in practice DNA collected using classroom based saliva sampling is of sufficient quality for extraction and genotyping. However, key challenges that must be overcome are ensuring representative recruitment of schools and sufficient parental engagement. Integration of a science workshop with curriculum fit was viewed as positive but was highly resource intensive.
Strengths and limitations of this study
This is the first study to test the feasibility and acceptability of collecting genetic samples in secondary schools and obtaining consent for linkage to questionnaire and record-based mental health data.
A key strength is co-production of the research protocol with stakeholders (young people, parents/guardians, schools).
We used a mixed-methods approach to assess the feasibility and acceptability of carrying out genetic research studies of mental health in schools.
This pilot study was conducted in three mainstream secondary schools in Wales, UK. Therefore it is not clear whether findings are transferrable to a wider section of schools in Wales and other countries, education systems and age groups.
It was not possible to collect data on the reasons for return or non-return of parental consent.
Introduction
In the UK, approximately 1 in 8 (12.8%) young people aged 5-19 years old have a diagnosable mental health disorder with rates increasing in recent years (Sadler et al., 2018; Collishaw & Sellers, 2020). The causes of youth mental health difficulties involve genetic and environmental risk and protective factors acting together in complex ways. The majority of adult mental health conditions originate before the age of 24 (Kessler et al., 2005; Kim-Cohen et al., 2003), and early identification and prevention are important priorities. However, only a minority of young people with mental health problems seek or receive help from health-care professionals (Neufeld et al., 2017; Sadler et al., 2018). To better understand risk and protective factors for psychiatric conditions, data from population-based samples of young people, including relevant genetic, biological, psychological and social factors is important. Established UK birth cohorts are a valuable resource for studying the development of mental ill health, including the interplay of genetic factors and family environment. However, the costs involved in setting up and maintaining such cohorts are considerable, and information about other social contexts such as schools is often limited (MRC Population Health Sciences Group, 2014).
An alternative approach involves collecting data on mental health and associated risk and protective factors from young people within the school setting, offering the opportunity to study role of classroom, peer group and school-level effects. In addition, school based designs offer the potential to recruit and obtain data from larger population-based samples than is possible using traditional birth cohort designs. Typically, participation rates are high in studies of student health when questionnaire data are collected during the school day (Hewitt et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2018). What is unclear is whether it would acceptable to schools, students and their parents to collect saliva samples for the purpose of genetic studies involving mental health, and what the main barriers are that need to be overcome to make this feasible in practice. Challenges include ensuring schools, parents/guardians and young people themselves will be accepting of research on genetics and mental health; providing information to young people, their parents and teachers; collecting appropriate informed consent; integrating research into the every-day life of schools in a way that fits with the needs of schools and learners; and implementing robust and ethical protocols for the collection of saliva samples in a classroom setting.
Previous studies have had some success with collecting salivary cortisol samples in school settings (for reviews see Condon, 2016 and Dimolareva et al., 2018). In contrast, little is known about the acceptability and feasibility in practice of classroom-based collection of salivary samples for genetic research. Despite increasing understanding and acceptance of genetic research, public concerns remain - particularly in relation to children (Bates et al., 2005; Clayton et al., 2018; Etchegary et al., 2015; Haga et al., 2013; Tambor et al., 2002), and mental health is often stigmatised (Corrigan, 2004; Time to Change, 2012), so it is unclear whether this type of research would be acceptable to young people, parents/guardians and school staff. Similarly, the concept of data linkage (e.g. to mental health questionnaires or health records) might elicit concerns about privacy (Russ et al., 2019).
Parent/guardian recruitment and consent is typically challenging in school-based research (Audrain et al., 2002; Schilpzand et al., 2015; Shaw et al., 2015; Totura et al., 2017). Having a research study and protocol that is acceptable to key stakeholders is critical to a research study’s success (Bevan Jones et al., 2020; Murphy et al., 2018). It will not only help with recruitment, but will also help develop a process that key stakeholder engage with or “buy into”, and that fits with the context and daily life of students, teachers and parents. Indeed, co-production of research with stakeholders is critical to support the development of school-based research (Murphy et al., 2018).
To our knowledge, no other study has examined the acceptability and feasibility of collecting saliva samples from young people in schools for the purpose of genetic research on mental health.
The current study
The Mental Wellbeing in Adolescence: Genes and Environment Study (MAGES) aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of collecting DNA saliva samples from young people in schools with consent for linkage to other routinely collected mental health questionnaire and record-based data. The over-arching aims were to work with stakeholders (school staff, parents and young people) to co-produce an acceptable research protocol, and then test this in practice in order to inform future studies on the best ways to carry out this kind of research.
The study was conducted in Wales which provides a globally unique research infrastructure, with student data collected in all mainstream secondary schools via SHRN (School Health Research Network, http://www.shrn.org.uk/) and potential linkage to routine health, education and social care data via SAIL (Secure Anonymised Information Linkage) databank (www.saildatabank.com). Collaboration with these two research infrastructures would allow large-scale acquisition of student survey and health data. For instance, the SHRN 2017 health and well-being survey was completed by all state-funded schools in Wales, UK (n=212) and had 97% of students take part (n=112,045) (Hewitt et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2018).
In the development phase we worked with stakeholders (young people, parents/guardians, schools) to develop a study protocol that had the greatest chance of being both acceptable and feasible in practice. To evaluate the MAGES protocol, we used a mixed-method design with quantitative and qualitative data to address our study objective. Specifically, we examined school, parent/guardian and student consent/participation rates, considered adherence to the study protocol and the occurrence of any adverse events (e.g. complaints), and the ability to genotype collected DNA samples. We collected feedback from young people about their participation in MAGES, and undertook post-study focus groups with teachers to gain further insights on the feasibility and acceptability of the study from the schools’ perspective, as well as teacher views on how the saliva collection protocol might be adapted in future.
Methods
Study design
The study was conducted in a series of stages: firstly a development phase, followed by implementation of the protocol, and then an evaluation phase (Figure 1). The development phase included co-production of the study protocol with key stakeholders. The MAGES protocol included recruitment of schools, obtaining consent from parents/guardians and students, and collection of saliva samples for genetic analysis. Saliva collection took place during specially developed MAGES science workshops that took the place of a normal science lesson (see below). Quantitative analysis included numbers and percentages for each stage of recruitment, percent of usable genotyped samples, and student feedback scores on the science workshop aspect of the MAGES protocol. Qualitative analysis included teacher focus group evaluation of MAGES process following completion of classroom data collection.
Development phase
Key stakeholders were involved during development of the research protocol, including young people, school staff, and parents/guardians.
Research team members discussed the study protocol and the practicalities of using saliva collection kits in a classroom setting with a group of young people aged 14-17 years old (n=11, 5 males, 6 females). Young people were part of a public patient involvement group called ALPHA (http://decipher.uk.net/public-involvement/young-people/). Based on feedback from this session we made changes to the study protocol (e.g. school assembly presentation) to simplify the content and to explain technical terms (e.g. data linkage) more fully.
Members of staff from schools included in SHRN shared their perspectives on the acceptability of taking saliva samples from students in schools and provided advice on practical issues. Teachers from 9 schools that were engaged in SHRN research were invited to take part. A total of 5 teachers (55.6%, 3 females, 2 males) from 5 schools and 1 Healthy Schools Practitioner (female) attended the discussions. Particular consideration was given to how research participation would impact teacher workload, how researchers could give back to schools, and potential practical challenges. School staff highlighted that getting the parental and guardian consent required for participants aged under 16 years old was likely to be the most challenging aspect of the project. As a result of this session, we adapted our protocol to target younger year groups (Years 7 and 8, ages 11-13) as it was thought that parents/guardians would be more engaged and older cohorts could not afford to take time out of core lessons. Suggested ways to engage parents and guardians were to meet parents in person via events at each school, and by presenting MAGES information in different formats. Based on this feedback, we included a parent/guardian event in our protocol and also created a website with videos explaining why the research is important and what taking part involves (www.cardiff.ac.uk/MAGES). Giving back to schools was also highlighted as important and providing a science workshop to students was considered a good way to do this.
Parents (mothers n=10) recruited from a local parent research network took part in a discussion on the proposed research and provided feedback on the clarity and content of parent/guardian information sheets. Data linkage emerged as a key concern and we adapted information sheets to provide more information on this.
Finally, to ensure that, the science workshop content was suitable for the proposed age range and was engaging and enjoyable for young people, we trialled the science workshop (see below) with a local Scout group of 12 boys aged 10-13 years old and 2 adult scout leaders (1 male, 1 female).
Implementation phase
Evaluation sample
Participants were students in Years 7 and 8 (aged 11-13 years) at mainstream secondary schools in South Wales, UK that were part of the School Health Research Network (Hewitt et al., 2018; Murphy et al., 2018).
Recruitment and protocol
Figure 1 depicts the recruitment and protocol used. Firstly, schools that were consulted in the development of the protocol (n=5) were invited to take part in MAGES via direct correspondence from the SHRN Manager to the SHRN school contact. This was followed up by MAGES staff. A further four local SHRN schools were invited to participate at a second recruitment wave. All schools were offered £500 (£250 per year group) as a thank you for facilitating the research.
School staff meetings
Following initial contact, MAGES researchers met with members of each school’s senior leadership teams. All schools were given the option of holding events for parents/guardians and teachers where MAGES staff would introduce the project and answer questions.
Information packs
Schools were asked to disseminate parent/guardian information packs (using the communication methods they would normally use). These included an overview of the study, frequently asked questions and a link to the study webpage (www.cardiff.ac.uk/MAGES). Parents/guardians were also given email and phone contact details for the MAGES team if they had queries or concerns.
At a later date, MAGES researchers delivered 15-20 minute assemblies to students to explain the project, following which, the schools were asked to distribute information packs to students.
Workshops
Feedback from key stakeholders during the development phase indicated the value of science workshops on the theme of genetics for engaging schools and learners. Student science workshops were scheduled to start two weeks from the student assembly. During this period, schools were asked to distribute reminder letters to parents/guardians and collate consent forms. MAGES staff also provided reminders via social media (twitter).
MAGES researchers delivered the workshop to all classes in each participating year group in the place of a normal science lesson (lasting 50-60 minutes). Science workshops began with an introduction to MAGES and the MAGES team followed by a lesson (see Figure 2) consisting of 1) a presentation teaching the basics of DNA, 2) a practical experiment extracting DNA from bananas, 3) an additional presentation on DNA structure, heredity, traits influenced by genes and impact of environment/experience, and 4) an activity creating origami DNA models. During the origami activity, students who had completed parent/guardian consent forms were invited to take part in the DNA collection by signing their own assent form and providing a saliva sample. This was conducted in a screened off area of the classroom or in a side room to provide privacy. At the end of the science workshop students were asked to provide feedback about whether they had enjoyed the session on a sticker chart (Supplementary Figure 2).
Ethical approval and consent
Ethical approval was obtained from Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (ref 18/57). As students were under 16 years, participation in MAGES required informed parental opt-in consent and student assent. Both parents/guardians and students had the option to not provide consent/assent for linking genetic information to other routinely collected data. Consent for routinely collected data was split into two broad categories: (i) health and educational records, and (ii) student-completed health and wellbeing questionnaires.
Evaluation phase
Feasibility
Recruitment and participants
The numbers of schools recruited, parent/guardian consent forms returned, student participation and consent for data linkage were recorded. Where possible, reasons for not taking part were also recorded. Percentages of the eligible sample were calculated as appropriate.
Participating and non-participating schools were compared on a number of routinely assessed school-level characteristics (https://mylocalschool.gov.wales/), including Free School Meals entitlement (%), minority ethnic pupils (%), student attendance (%), and academic achievement (% achieving 5 General Certificate of Secondary Education at A*-C grades).
Saliva samples
Participants provided saliva samples (approximately 5ml) using Genotek Oragene saliva kits under the supervision of MAGES researchers (full instructions in Supplementary Figure 1). Participants were asked if they had eaten or drunk anything in the last 30 minutes and if not, were instructed to fill the saliva collection tube to the fill line. If participants had eaten or drunk in the last 30 minutes, they were asked to wait 30 minutes before providing a sample. Sample collection took around 5-10 minutes per participant, and multiple students provided samples at the same time under researcher supervision. The collection tubes were labelled using barcodes and a unique participant study number. The samples were taken to the research laboratory (MRC Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics) at Cardiff University. All samples were processed in accordance with the standard operating procedures for sample management, storage, and tracking of biological materials. DNA was extracted from the saliva samples in-house, following standard Genotek Oragene DNA Prep-IT protocols. DNA sample quantification was determined using Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA assay kits, and samples were genotyped using Illumina Infinium Global Screening arrays. Data were recorded on the number and percentage of successfully extracted and genotyped samples.
Adherence to study protocol and adverse events
The research team undertook a review of the protocol following completion of the study within each school and recorded data on adherence to protocol. This included instances where the protocol (Figure 1) was changed and any adverse events (e.g. complaints).
Acceptability
Science workshop
Student feedback was collected at the end of each workshop to assess the value of including the science workshops in the protocol. Students rated their enjoyment of the workshop using a sticker chart (Supplementary Figure 2) with a scale of: 1) “Yes – I had great fun”; 2) “Most of it was quite good”; 3) “Some of the time it was ok”; or 4) “No – I didn’t like it”.
Teacher focus groups post-MAGES
Three focus groups were held with teachers in participating schools to get feedback on MAGES. Teachers were recruited to the focus groups by each school’s MAGES key contact teacher. A £20 voucher was offered as remuneration for each teacher’s time, and schools were given £125 for holding the focus group. Five teachers participated in each focus group (School 1: 3 female, 2 male; School 2: 5 female; School 3: 2 female, 3 male). This sample included science teachers, members of the senior leadership team and form tutors responsible for pastoral care.
Focus groups lasted approximately 45 minutes. Two MAGES researchers (SR and NW), responsible for workshop delivery and saliva collection, conducted the focus groups.
Teachers were asked about their views on mental health research in young people, how MAGES was conducted in their school, how they and others (parents/guardians, students) found the MAGES process and what improvements they would make to the study if they were to participate again (see Supplementary Table 1 for focus group schedule).
Digital audio recordings of the three focus groups were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription company. The transcribed interviews were then exported to NVivo 12, a qualitative data analysis computer software package.
Two MAGES researchers (SR and NW) conducted an inductive thematic analysis of the data following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework. The steps in this process included: 1) data familiarisation, 2) initial code generation, 3) theme identification and framework development, 4) theme review, and 5) final theme definition.
Both researchers coded all the transcripts independently and then met to jointly develop a coding framework. This framework was derived inductively from the focus group data but was also influenced deductively by the research questions. They subsequently recoded the transcripts using the agreed framework. Following this, coding reliability and validity was checked using NVivo 12.
Results
Feasibility
Recruitment and participants
3 of 5 schools involved in the advisory stage agreed to take part in MAGES, with the two non-participating schools stating they were too busy. No schools (0/4) in the second recruitment wave agreed to meet to discuss taking part in MAGES. Reasons given were too busy (n=1), the school had concerns over taking DNA from children and being perceived as having young people with mental health problems (n=1), and MAGES researchers unable to reach the SHRN contact in time (n=2). The total school participation rate was 33.3% (3 out of 9 invited schools). On average, the three participating schools had lower Free School Meal (FSM) entitlement (14.0% versus 23.1%), lower proportion of minority ethnic students (15.4% versus 21.9%) than the six non-participating schools, and similar student attendance (94.3% versus 93.7%), and academic achievement (58.4% versus 60.2%). In comparison to the national average, participating schools had lower FSM entitlement (Wales average 17.5%), higher proportion of minority ethnic students (Wales average 9.8%), higher student attendance (Wales average 93.9%), and higher academic achievement (Wales average 55.1%).
Table 1 details the number of parent/guardian consent forms received, saliva samples collected and consent for data linkage for each participating school. Only three parents from the eligible sample of 868 (0.3%) reported they did not want their child to participate. These responses were provided via email (n=1) and by reporting on the consent form (n=2). 98 parents (11.3%) provided consent for students to participate in the study and no responses were received from the remaining sample (88.4%).
Of the 98 students with parent/guardian consent, saliva samples were obtained from 90 students (89.63%; 31 males, 59 females). Five students decided they did not want to take part, two were absent on days of saliva collection, and there was not enough time to collect a sample from one student. Additional permission for all data linkage was obtained for 79 (80.61%) students.
Sample collection rates varied by school, ranging from 7.53% to 15.29% of eligible students. This primarily reflected variation in parental response/consent (7.96%-17.20%). There was also considerable within-school variation in sample collection between different classes (School 1: 0-38.2%; School 2: 11.1-28.0%; School 3: 0-21.4%).
DNA extraction and genotyping
Of the 90 saliva samples collected, we were able to extract DNA and genotype 89 (98.9%) samples. One sample was not genotyped due to insufficient concentration of DNA.
Adherence to study protocol
The study protocol was followed for School 1. However, the time-limited nature of science workshops during a normal lesson time restricted the number of saliva samples that could be collected. In subsequent schools we adjusted the protocol so that the saliva collection occurred approximately one week following the science workshop to allow adequate time for saliva collection.
After School 1 layout and formatting changes were made to the parent/guardian consent forms to increase clarity.
Only one school (School 3) opted to provide an evening event to explain MAGES to parents and guardians. This event was organised specifically to discuss MAGES (Thursday evening, 5.30pm start) but was poorly attended (n=5, 1.08% of school eligible sample). This session was primarily comprised of parents and guardians with concerns and queries about the research. No school chose to have the additional event for MAGES researchers to explain the project to teachers.
We did not receive any complaints about the research from students, parents/guardians or school staff.
Acceptability
Science workshop
Of the students who gave feedback on the science workshops, the majority (88.36%) said “Yes – I had great fun” or “Most of it was quite good” (Table 2).
Teacher focus groups post-MAGES
A number of themes were identified from thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with teachers (Table 3). Here we focus on key themes that informed our understanding on acceptability and feasibility.
Acceptability
Teachers were asked about their views on the appropriateness of conducting a study like MAGES in a school environment. Generally, teachers were in favour of schools taking part in research such as MAGES.
“You asked whether or not it’s a good idea to use the schools. I think we’re in an ideal position. A captive audience, if you want. It’s the easiest way of getting hold of those pupils and that information and of youngsters so I don’t necessarily have a problem with schools being involved.”
The consensus was largely that the MAGES protocol was acceptable, however there was some concern that this view may not be shared by other people within the community. Some teachers did suggest that people outside of the school may feel it was inappropriate for teachers to facilitate this kind of research.
“I wonder how that might be seen by different people as in, why are they taking DNA? What are they going to do with it? Why should teachers allow them to come in and do that?”
Teachers discussed the acceptability of MAGES from the point of view of parents/guardians and students. Although some participants suggested that they expected parents/guardians to react negatively to MAGES, all participants agreed that no parent or student approached them with any complaints or concerns.
“When I first got sent the email about the project, as a scientist I thought some parents are not going to like that…but we took the risk and, in fact, we got more people coming back than I thought we would.”
Benefits
The benefits of taking part in MAGES were widely discussed, with members of all groups indicating that they would be willing to participate in MAGES again in the future.
The potential contribution to mental health research was noted in all three focus groups as a major benefit of being involved with MAGES.
“I think there’s a lot of mental wellbeing issues in amongst children now. If we’ve got research and there’s data on it, if that data can be used in a positive way, then it’s a good thing but it’s just the feasibility of collecting that large amount of data for it to be viable.”
Teachers also said they would have agreed to take part without the incentive of the science workshop, however there was a preference for the workshop to remain as part of MAGES.
“I would have still agreed to do it, absolutely, but I wonder if the kids could actually link to what’s going on. I think that’s where the disconnect would be. We still would’ve signed up to it absolutely because we recognise we’ve got mental health issues in the school and the importance of these types of research studies.”
Similarly, teachers acknowledged the value of linking genetic with data on mental health.
“I would’ve thought, to make your research valuable, you’ve got to do it otherwise all you’ve got it is a DNA sample.”
The possibility that genetic research may become more acceptable to people in the future was brought up by multiple teachers.
“I think that attitude will change in the future. This is quite early on. Everybody was initially technology – the beast. Now, everybody’s embracing it. I think exactly the same thing will happen with DNA and testing. I think it will probably become quite routine.”
The prestige of working in partnership and forming a relationship with Cardiff University was discussed as a benefit of schools taking part in MAGES.
“Our incentive has been the formation of this partnership and feeling like we’re helping you with your samples and we’ve had something for our students back.”
Science workshop
The biggest benefit identified was the science workshops that were delivered to all Year 7 and 8 students. Teachers frequently commented on the value of having external visitors who could be viewed as role models. It was also suggested that the science workshops were helpful for students in terms of clarifying how their saliva samples would be used if they chose to take part. Teachers noted how much students enjoyed the session and suggested it gave them an opportunity to practice real, advanced science relevant to the teaching curriculum.
“It creates a buzz that you’ve got the profile of Cardiff University coming in, it gets the children excited about it. When we have outside speakers, they love that and that’s why I think it’s needed because otherwise, it’s just spit into this thing and signing a form whereas if they did the banana DNA, they went home and talked about it, they were talking about it in their next lessons.”
“I think it’s really important for students to see researchers because students have this idea that scientists are lab coats and you don’t all look like Albert Einstein. For you guys to come in, you’re normal people and to say ‘we are scientists, we are doing this’ and for them to think, ‘you’re ordinary people, we could do that.’”
Concerns and potential challenges
Although focus group participants agreed on the whole that it was acceptable to conduct MAGES within a school environment, they did acknowledge some concerns. These focused on the potential negative impact of genetic research on participants as well as privacy issues surrounding the process of data linkage.
All potential MAGES participants were told that they would not receive any results from their saliva sample. This was explained during the initial assembly, the science workshop and was detailed in all MAGES literature. However, not all teachers were present in the assembly and many had not read the information leaflets. This led to some unaddressed concern among teachers about the potential harm that could be caused to students if they were to be informed that they had an increased genetic risk for particular mental health conditions. Focus group participants felt strongly that students should not receive any feedback regarding the results of their DNA sample. Some teachers worried that if feedback were provided to students, then this might lead them to believe they were predisposed to mental illness and that this could lead to a “self-fulfilling prophecy” in which the development of mental illness becomes inevitable.
“If we’ve got a young person who has mental health issues, they get a DNA test, they find they’ve got that gene, I fear they’d think there’s nothing they could do. They’d say, ‘I’ve got the gene, I’m genetically going to have mental health issues, there’s no point having therapy, there’s no point talking about it because that’s just who I am.’”
Concerns about how participants’ data could be used in the future and the potential negative impact this might have were discussed.
“If you discover a DNA precursor to mental health, what if an insurance company in the future said to you is this person likely to get mental health illnesses? Or a mortgage company?”
Teachers acknowledged the value of data linkage and were aware of the measures in place to protect participant’s privacy, however some did still express concern about this aspect of the study.
“I know its numbers and barcodes but at some stage in the process, somebody will have access to the names and be able to link it.”
Participant understanding of MAGES and communication was also noted as a challenge. Some teachers felt that the information given to students by researchers about genetic research and data linkage was too complex for young people to properly understand.
“It’s the lost in translation thing – they didn’t quite understand what. And some of them are quite, we have got a very, very weak [academically] to begin with and when the kids are very, very weak [academically], it was more lost in translation.”
The initial MAGES assembly was felt to be too complex and that this had led to misunderstanding the purpose of the study by some students. Teachers said that some students came away from the assembly believing that the purpose of MAGES was to screen them for mental health conditions.
“I had one student who is a very weak young lady [academically] who thought you were going to test her for mental health problems and was concerned that you were going to tell her there was something wrong with her.”
Similarly, teachers suggested that parents and guardians may have found the information sheets to be too complex which may have impacted their decision about allowing their child to participate.
“It’s education for the parents as well – they need to fully and truly understand what it’s for, what’s happening to their child’s DNA what are they going to do with it, what’s going to happen in the end? Obviously, we do have a lot of parents who aren’t professionals, who are out of work or whatever it may be and they don’t truly understand what it means to take DNA and they just understand DNA from the television… If they don’t truly understand why you’re taking it then no, it’s too scary…”
Communication, in particular, was seen as a challenging element of MAGES, and that this required teachers to provide additional information and answer follow-up questions from students. Teachers reported that some members of staff were approached by students with questions about MAGES following the initial assembly and the distribution of the student information sheets, suggesting that the information provided by researchers was inadequate on its own.
“When I gave out the packs, I asked if there were any questions and I spent 10-15 minutes with people asking if it will tell them if they’ve got this disease and will they have this on file forever.”
Teachers felt that not enough school staff were given information about MAGES and that this limited the school’s ability to facilitate the recruitment of potential participants.
“They [students] would come and ask me, some of them who are in my class, but I think because the other science teachers weren’t massively, well they didn’t really know what this was about and what was going on, perhaps they weren’t as enthusiastic as I was.”
The majority of teachers felt that the school’s contact with parents/guardians regarding MAGES was ineffective which may have had negative implications in terms of recruitment.
“Parents – we didn’t get them in … the only way we managed to get it out was on our “Schoop Line” and via the letters. So, itt was woeful in that respect in terms of engaging the parents, which is why, as we mentioned previously that’s what we need to do better.”
Recommendations for the future
Working with school staff
Focus group members suggested various ways for researchers to more effectively engage staff in the participating schools. This included involving more staff throughout the school including science teachers, school nurses and teachers responsible for pastoral care. Participants suggested that the most effective way to engage with school staff would be for MAGES researchers to organise a face-to-face meeting to present information verbally.
“I wonder as well… if because I spoke to Year 7 and 8 tutors only. I’ve mentioned it to other staff but in passing. I wonder if every member of staff in the school community could be aware of what is going on and the real purposes behind it.”
Engaging students and parents/guardians
There was significant discussion of the importance of MAGES researchers engaging with students and suggestions of several ways in which this could be improved. Proposed improvements included: simplifying the initial student assembly, making MAGES more exciting and appealing to students, and alternative DNA related activities that may be more relevant to the research.
“I feel that maybe it could have been sold as a bit more fun and special as in you’re helping people out, you’re doing this, not everyone’s getting to do it. Because you had to say all the important bits and everything ethically, that then it didn’t seem as fun for them…You’ve got to give the information but I’m wondering if it could be sparkled up.”
As parental consent was a necessary prerequisite for student participation in MAGES, this was discussed extensively in focus groups as a key area to target in order to boost recruitment. A parent evening or event in which MAGES researchers meet face-to-face with parents/guardians to answer questions and provide detailed information was generally considered to be the most effective way to achieve this.
“I think that if we were to do this again, then we would look to hold an evening for parents, as everybody has said, to get the elephant out of the room and have those discussions. I think that would be far better. I think if we had said this is a really, really good idea, you would have 100% take-up, you really would. But it’s the parents then that is the discussion to have.”
Discussion
This study set out to develop and test a protocol to obtain genetic samples in schools for mental health research. As this was an exploratory study, no pre-set progression criteria were made on which to base feasibility judgements. Whilst genetic and mental health research was viewed as important and acceptable by stakeholders in the development phase, and the protocol itself proved largely acceptable to participants, we also found that the MAGES protocol for genetics and mental health research in schools was not feasible in its current form due to a number of challenges, notably non-response from parents as well as securing participation from schools. Further work is needed to enhance school and parent recruitment rates. It is also notable that this protocol was highly resource-intensive, and further consideration of resources is required to make the protocol more effective if data collection is to be scaled up. The quality of saliva samples was good with only one sample with insufficient quantity to extract and genotype, which suggests researcher-supervised saliva collection using spit kits is a viable method of collecting genetic data from young people in schools. We received no complaints from students, parents or school staff concerning the study, and only three active refusals from parents at the consent stage. The MAGES science workshops was viewed as an important (but perhaps not essential) component by teachers and schools, and it received positive feedback from the vast majority of students. Feedback from the post-study focus groups indicated that teachers see mental health as important, and that they are, in principle, accepting of genetics and mental health research in schools; however, this information is limited to teachers from schools that took part, therefore were already interested and invested in such research. Teachers also highlighted concerns and challenges, such as improving communication and engagement, that should be addressed going forward.
A major strength of this study is the inclusion of key stakeholders throughout the research process – from development through to the evaluation phase. This allowed us to co-produce a study protocol with schools, young people and parents. Notably, the majority of schools who had been participated in the co-production phase participated in MAGES, compared with none of those contacted subsequently. We took a mixed-methods approach, giving more depth of information than just quantitative or qualitative research alone. We were also able to increase awareness of mental health and genetics amongst key stakeholders especially young people which, although not our primary aim, has been a positive outcome of the study. Nevertheless, this study has limitations. Whilst parents and guardians were involved in the development phase, further information is needed to understand barriers to parents/guardian recruitment. For instance, it is unclear whether lack of returned parent/guardian consent forms is due to (i) parents/guardians not wanting their child to take part or having a problem with the research, (ii) information not reaching the parent/guardian, or (iii) something preventing the return process. Engagement of parents/guardians can often be an important barrier to recruitment (Audrain et al., 2002; Schilpzand et al., 2015; Shaw et al., 2015; Totura et al., 2017). The study is also limited by the small number of schools that took part, and the limited uptake of teacher and parent MAGES meetings in these schools. Finally, this study took place in mainstream schools in Wales (UK) so results may not generalise to different education systems, countries and age groups.
To our knowledge, this is the first study that has assessed in detail the feasibility and acceptability of collecting saliva samples in schools for the purpose of genetic studies together with obtaining consent for data linkage. However, parent consent rates were lower in the current study in comparison to other school-based research in other contexts and countries. For instance, in a school-based study collecting smoking survey information and genetic samples in 14-15-year-olds there was a parental consent rate of 54% (Audrain et al., 2002) and a school-based survey study trialling recruitment methods in 6-7-year-olds obtained 56% parental consent in cohort 1 and 71% in cohort 2 (Schilpzand et al., 2015). These studies were able to undertake more intensive recruitment strategies (e.g. multiple waves of letters sent directly to parents, follow-up phone calls, and incentives) over a longer period of time. The added complexity of linking genetic data to health and social records in the current study may have also affected response rates given concerns of confidentiality rank highly in reasons for parent consent refusal (Audrain et al., 2002) and teachers in post-MAGES focus groups highlighted genetic privacy as a concern. Teacher concerns were similar to those identified in previous research such as concerns about general privacy and the negative impact of potential future data disclosure (e.g. insurance and mortgage company discrimination) (Bates et al., 2005; Clayton et al., 2018).
Our study suggests that it is very difficult to reach a full cross-section of parents or for such work to be undertaken at scale or to be representative of the whole population. Family-based study designs such as population based birth cohorts, or clinic-based recruitment of children with mental health conditions and their families appear better placed for engaging parents directly with biological sample collection, including genetics. This is particularly the case in circumstances where an effective link between the research team and the family has helped establish trust and mutual understanding, e.g. as part of ongoing longitudinal population, patient or high risk cohorts.
Our research points to a number of recommendations for future school-based mental health genetic research based on feedback from teachers and our own experience. First, engaging all stakeholders through the entire research process, from development to evaluation, is crucial. This is vital to not only facilitate recruitment and improving research protocols, but also because it helps promote understanding of genetics and mental health amongst stakeholders, and the needs and perspectives of stakeholders amongst researchers. Teacher feedback and our own experience suggest face-to-face meetings are potentially best and should be included in school-based research protocols where possible but this does have implications for researcher time and research costs. Second, clear communication is essential for getting key messages to all stakeholders at all stages of the research. Factors that can aid clear communication are: simplified and concise information letters, multiple formats of information (e.g. video messages, paper letters, website, face-to face meetings), direct channels of communication by the study team to all stakeholders (one major limitation of the study was that it was not possible to contact parents directly), and working with stakeholders to develop information packs and to introduce the research in schools. Third, it is important to give back to schools to reflect the time and hard work required to effectively facilitate such research. The science workshops in particular were highlighted as a major benefit for students and teachers and we also provided schools remuneration for their time. Again, scaling up would have significant cost implications. Fourth, adequate time and resources need to be dedicated to the collection of saliva samples. For instance, we altered the MAGES protocol to provide additional time to collect saliva samples. Finally, clear strategies for parent recruitment are needed for each school based on consultation with school staff. This is likely to include multiple waves of information packs sent direct to parent addresses, telephone follow ups, and providing multiple ways to make it as easy as possible for parents to consent (e.g. paper form, electronic form by email, online forms).
Future research would benefit from investigation of how to enhance parental recruitment rates. Parental consent is a challenge in school-based research (Audrain et al., 2002; Schilpzand et al., 2015; Shaw et al., 2015; Totura et al., 2017), and may be particularly challenging with research that covers mental health, genetics and data linkage. We chose to recruit younger students from UK secondary schools (aged 11-13 years) as consultation with key stakeholders suggested parents of students this age would be more engaged; however, our low parent recruitment numbers suggests that this was not the case. Research focusing specifically on factors that affect parental rates of opt-in consent for school-based studies of this kind is needed. It would also be beneficial to assess whether parents would be easier to reach and be more engaged at other stages in their children’s school careers, for instance, parents of primary school aged children (aged 4-11 years), though this would raise new questions about children’s understanding and stakeholder views on the acceptability of genetic mental health research in this age group. An alternative would be to study older students (e.g. in the UK aged 16+ years) where students are able to provide their own active consent; however, in practice this would not obviate the need to keep all stakeholders in the school community, including parents, appropriately informed about the purposes and practicalities of the research.
Conclusions
Our study suggests that it is challenging to collect genetic data for the purpose of mental health research in a school setting. Low participation rates, especially amongst parents, suggest that the scope and scale of such research would likely be restricted to sample designs where it is less important that samples are representative at a whole population level. Ultimately, however, large-scale representative samples covering a broad spectrum of genetic, biological, psychological and social factors are required for advancements of our understanding of mental health risk and resilience in young people. The current study highlights that there would be major challenges in scaling up school-based mental health genetics research. The most important barrier is the difficulty in obtaining parent and guardian opt-in consent for their child’s participation.
Data Availability
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Funding
This work was supported by a UK Medical Research Council Mental Health Data Pathfinder grant (MC_PC_17212).
The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Joint funding (MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.
The work was undertaken with support from the Public Health Improvement Research Network (PHIRN). PHIRN is part of the National Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research funded by Health and Care Research Wales, Welsh Government http://www.healthandcareresearch.gov.wales/
Competing interests
None declared.
Patient consent for publication
Not required.
Ethics approval
Parents/guardians of children gave written consent and children gave written assent to take part in the study. The study was approved by Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (ref 18/57).
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.