Content uploaded by Torill Bogsnes Larsen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Torill Bogsnes Larsen on Dec 27, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Promoting mental health and preventing
loneliness in upper secondary school in
Norway: Eects of a randomized controlled
trial
Torill Bogsnes Larsen1 , Department of Health Promotion and
Development, University of Bergen,
Torill.larsen@uib.no
Helga Urke, Department of Health Promotion and Development, University
of Bergen,
Helga.urke@uib.no
Marte Tobro, Oxford Research,
marte.tobro@econ.uio.no
Elisabeth Årdal, Department of Health Promotion and Development,
University of Bergen,
Elisabeth.Ardal@uib.no
Ragnhild Holmen Waldahl, Nordland Research Institute, University Nord,
rhw@nforsk.no
Ingebjørg Djupedal, Department of Health Promotion and Development,
University of Bergen,
Ingebjorg.Djupedal@uib.no
Ingrid Holsen, Department of Health Promotion and Development,
University of Bergen,
Ingrid.holsen@uib.no
1 Corresponding Author for this paper: Professor Torill Larsen
Department of Health Promotion and Development, Christiesgt. 13, 5020 Bergen
Email: torill.larsen@uib.no
1
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of an intervention with a
universal program (single-tier) in one group, and the combination of this
universal program and a selected+indicated measure (multi-tier) in another
group. Intervention designed to enhance the psychosocial environment to reduce
loneliness and mental health problems. 17 upper secondary schools in Norway
were randomly assigned with six, six, and five schools in the single-tier, multi-
tier and control group respectively. An overall increase in mental health
problems and loneliness was found in all groups at follow-up. Compared to girls
in the control group, girls in the multitier group had a significantly lower
increase in mental health problems. Due to small effects, we take caution in
interpreting findings.
KEYWORDS; Intervention effects, Adolescents, Mental health, Loneliness,
Upper secondary schools, single-tier, multi-tier
2
Introduction
Adolescents’ mental health is a field gaining increasing attention in research, prevention and
treatment. In Norway, recent national estimates among 15-16 years old adolescents show that
29% of girls and 10% of boys report high levels of depressive symptoms (Bakken, 2018).
Furthermore, 7% of boys and 16% of girls in the first year of upper secondary school report
being lonely (Bakken, 2018). Research shows clear associations between mental health
problems and absence from school among students in upper secondary education (Anvik &
Gustavsen, 2012; Markussen, Frøseth, & Sandberg, 2011; Markussen & Seland, 2012), and
the dropout rate in upper secondary schools in Norway is 20–30% (Statistics Norway, 2013).
Adolescents’ mental health problems, including loneliness, represent public health challenges
that may affect social participation, future education and occupation, income and
productivity, (Nes & Clench-Aas, 2011; National Institute for Public Health, 2014; WHO,
2014).
Correspondingly, the World Health Organization’s report on adolescents’ health, calls
for approaches that look beyond the individual to improve the mental health of young people
worldwide (WHO, 2014). A recent report on mental health promotion in schools in Norway
has an increased focus on students’ mental health (Holen & Waagene, 2014), both in
identifying students who struggle and in the need for preventing mental health problems
through focusing on enabling good psychosocial environments within schools. However, the
report concludes that there is still a way to go before mental health promotion is a part of the
systematic psychosocial work within schools, such as integration into activity plans and
school policy documents (Holen & Waagene, 2014).
The psychosocial school environment is primarily concerned with interpersonal
conditions, and how these affect the students’ experiences of belonging, mental health, well-
3
being, and thus learning in the broadest sense. The emphasis on psychosocial school
environment and teacher–student and peer relationships as important components in
achieving mental health and well-being is not new. It was highlighted in Rutter, Maughan,
Mortimore, Ouston, and Smith’s (1979) seminal work nearly 40 years ago and still has
resonance today. Rutter et al. (1979) stated that adolescents spend nearly half of their waking
hours in school, and their well-being and social integration is influenced by the quality of
their relationships with teachers and peers. More recent research, both nationally and
internationally, shows that good psychosocial school environments promote health, well-
being and positive social development, and prevent students from dropping out of school
(Danielsen, Samdal, Hetland & Wold, 2009; Larsen et al., 2014; Lerner, von Eye, Lerner &
Lewin-Bizan, 2009; Samdal & Rowling, 2011; 2015; Weare & Nind, 2011). For example,
Krane, Karlsson, Ness and Kim’s (2016) literature review highlighted the relationship
between teachers and students as one of the most important factors for good mental health in
students. Settertobulte and Matos (2004) and Birkeland, Breivik and Wold (2014) found that
being liked and accepted by their peers was essential for young people’s positive
development, while loneliness was seen as a risk factor for dropping out (Frostad, Pijl, &
Mjaavatn, 2014; Ramsdal, Gjærum, & Wynn, 2013). Also, studies points to that connection to
peers and teachers has a profound influence on students’ overall satisfaction with their school
environment (Danielsen et al., 2009; Lerner et al., 2009; Tian, Zhao, & Huebner, 2015).
Those who are not socially included are thus more likely to experience loneliness and
difficulties in relation to their mental health.
As such, the Self-determination theory (SDT) highlights the mechanisms between the
psychosocial environment, academic performance and mental health as social, contextual
assets that facilitate processes of motivation, positive development and well-being (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). SDT emphasizes three basic psychological needs—competence, autonomy and
4
relatedness/belonging. When these needs are satisfied, they lead to enhanced motivation and
positive mental health (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In a school context, motivation, learning and
well-being will be highest where the environment and culture support students emotionally
and provide opportunities to experience belonging, autonomy and competence (Niemiec &
Ryan, 2009; Tian, Chen, & Huebner, 2014; Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipuer, Hanisch, Creed &
McGregor, 2006). In line with previous research on SDT in school settings (Kiefer, Alley, &
Ellerbrock, 2015; Tian, Liu, Huang & Huebner, 2013; Tian, et al, 2014) and in regard to
school belonging (Allen, & Kern, 2017; Allen, Kern, Vella-Brodrick, Hattie, & Waters,
2016), the mechanisms for change are that working with creating a good psychosocial
environment that fulfils the students’ need for belonging, competence and autonomy, leads to
better mental health and reduced loneliness.
The current study
Thus, the school is a central institution in the life of students, and important for
creating good conditions for positive development, promoting feelings of belonging, good
mental health and well-being. Nevertheless, it is rare that the psychosocial environment is
highlighted as a key target area in the individual school (Samdal & Rowling, 2011; 2015).
The current study aims at examining the effect of a psychosocial school intervention on
mental health problems, measured as anxiety and depressive symptoms, and loneliness
among upper secondary school students in Norway. The study is a randomized controlled trial
comparing single-tier- (only a universal program addressing all students) and multitier (the
combination of both a universal and a selective and indicative tier) intervention schools to
control schools. Both the single – and multitier tier build on SDT and provide tools for
working systematically with the psychosocial environment to facilitate good integration into
the school throughout the year.
5
In the current study, the main hypothesis is that adolescents attending intervention
schools with either the single tier or the multi-tier measure will experience a decrease both in
mental health problems and loneliness compared to adolescents in the control schools. Both
universal and indicative measures are supported in the literature (Durlak, Weissberg,
Dymnicki, Taylor & Schellinger, 2011; Payton et al., 2008), and an underlying research
question will be to see if they have differential effects.
Previous research has shown gender differences in self-reporting mental health
problems and social support (Bakken, 2017; Derdikman-Eiron et al., 2012), with girls
reporting increasing mental health problems and increased social support compared to same
age boys. Although, efforts to improve the psychosocial environment aim at influencing both
genders, it is found that girls more easily than boys benefit from the social relations and
support that exist in the environment (Derdikman-Eiron et al., 2012). In regards to SES,
research has found that higher SES groups report less mental health problems (Bakken, 2017;
Skogen, Smith, Aarø, Siqveland, & Øverland, 2018). Thus, the second aim is to explore if
there are differential effects in regards to gender and socioeconomic status.
Methods
Study design
The COMPLETE project is a school-based randomized controlled study in 17 upper
secondary schools in four counties in Norway. The trial started in August 2016 and will end
in June 2019. The study is non-blinded, and the design includes two intervention groups (a
single-tier (I1) and a multi-tier intervention (I2)) and a control group. Details about the full
trial can be found in the study protocol (Larsen, Urke, Holsen, Anvik, Olsen, Waldahl,
Antonsen, Johnson, Tobro, Brastad & Hansen,2018). The present paper will assess the effect
after 8 months of intervention.
6
Schools were self-selected, and eligible for participation if they had not previously or
currently implemented any of the interventions, or similar interventions. Eligible schools
were assigned to one of three comparison groups by random allocation, 6 in the single-tier
group (n = 1019), 6 in the multi-tier group (n = 1264), and 5 in the control groups (n = 720).
The multitier group combined a universal program (the Dream School Program (DSP)) with a
selective and indicative measure (the Mental Health Support Team (MHST)), while the
single-tier group included only the universal program (DSP). The initial sample was n = 3003
students (Figure 1).
[Insert Figure 1 here]
The school context in Norway
In Norway, education is mandatory for all children aged 6–16 years. Since 1994, every
student in Norway has been granted three years of upper secondary public schooling and can
choose between vocational education programs and programs from general studies. Thus,
almost all students attend upper secondary schools (ages 15-16, 16-17, and 18-19 years in
first, second and third year respectively). In Norwegian upper secondary schools,
approximately 25 students enroll in each class, with several classes in each year level. The
students in the first grade stay together in the same class and the same room most of the day,
while the teachers move between the classrooms. One or two teachers are assigned as contact
teacher(s) and have special responsibility for the class. In addition, each school has student
services that seek to address the students’ social, emotional and academic challenges, as well
as supporting them in exploring future careers. The student services vary somewhat from
school to school, but the functions that are constant throughout are, first and foremost,
7
counsellors, pedagogical psychological services (PPS)2 and school nurses. Furthermore, there
is a follow-up service in all counties that is responsible for supporting youth under the age of
21 who have the right to training but are not employed or in training (The Education Act,
1998, §3-6).
Interventions
The Dream School Program (DSP)
The DSP was developed by the Norwegian NGO Adults for Children (AfC, 2017). The
program is a universal and whole-school program, involving school staff and students, with
the aim of creating environments where students are encouraged to participate, feel confident
and experience a sense of belonging, and where mental health is promoted. A key element of
the DSP is the training and use of peer leaders from second or third grade, called peer
mentors, as important contributors to the program. The DSP contains specific core elements
that must be conducted for it to be well implemented. These are the Dream Class 1 and 2, and
the Dream Class poster, which provides guidelines for enabling a good psychosocial class
environment. The Dream Class 1 is scheduled to the first week of school, and the Dream
Class 2 is scheduled to the beginning of the second semester of the school year
(January/February). The Dream Class poster should be developed during the first weeks of
the first semester. A DSP manual for carrying out the program is provided to the responsible
staff involved, in addition to training by AfC of school staff and peer mentors. The peer
mentors are to be actively involved in collaboration with class teachers in carrying out these
core elements. In addition, they welcome new students on the first day of school, convey
2 PPS is an external services helping students in need of special arrangements so that they receive
an
inclusive, equivalent and adapted educational offer. PPS works both individually and systematically.
8
information about class and school gatherings, and are intended to be actively involved in
creating meeting points for socialization throughout the school year. They should also give
special attention to students who seem to be left out or lonely. The effectiveness of the DSP
has previously been evaluated in two pilot studies, with promising effects on academic self-
efficacy, teacher support and intention to continue upper secondary school the following year
(Holsen, Larsen, Tjomsland & Sevan, 2015; Holsen, Larsen & Årdal, 2016).
The Mental Health Support Team (MHST)
The MHST is a team model developed in a collaboration between employees at Bodin Upper
Secondary School in Norway (COMPLETE, 2018) and researchers at Nordland Research
Institute (2017). The MHST team has its starting point in the school’s student services and
thus represents a reorganizing of existing resources within the school to work more
systematic with identifying and follow up of students at risk. Each team consists of
counsellors, school nurses and follow-up services staff. The MHST works both indicative and
selective—it targets specific students with known mental health problems or other issues who
are at risk of dropping out, and identifies and follows up on students who have patterns of
high absence from school. It systematizes and reorganizes student services through: 1)
services and staff working in services being situated at the same place; 2) having “one open
door” to increase the accessibility of services and staff to students and teachers; 3) focusing
on enhancing the quality of the school start to better facilitate the move from lower to upper
secondary school, while also collaborating with lower secondary schools; 4) mapping all 1st
year students’ health and well-being during the autumn and follow-up talks with students
with scores indicating that they are struggling. The score is based on Kidscreen; 5) having
close follow-up of at-risk students to ensure tailored help is available to each student; and 6)
focusing on early detection of absentee as well as intervention and follow-up when the
9
student shows signs of absenteeism.
The teams are cross- and multidisciplinary, and facilitate collaborations within the
MHST, between MHST and school leadership, and between lower and upper secondary
schools. They also support teachers and act as supervisors in their work with at-risk students.
The control group
The effect of the intervention (both single-tier and the multi-tier) were measured against the
control group which consisted of five randomly assigned upper secondary schools comprising
a total sample of 541 students responding to the baseline assessment (see Figure 1 and Table
1 for details).
Data collection and measures
A baseline survey among all first year students was conducted electronically during school
hours in August 2016, and the first follow-up survey was conducted in March/April 2017.
Prior to data collection, written and verbal information was given to all students, emphasizing
that participation was voluntary, ensuring anonymity and confidential use of data, and
advising of the possibilities of withdrawal. Active parental consent was required from
students under the age of 16 years at the time of data collection, and information was
provided to all parents of these students in written and electronic form through the school or
county e-mail and mobile text message (SMS) infrastructure. Because this study targets
adolescents, only students who use their statutory right to attend upper secondary education
and training (young person’s right 3) were included (The Education Act, 1998, § 3-1). For
3 In accordance to The Education Act, young people who have completed primary and lower
secondary education or the equivalent have, on application, the right to three years’ full-time
upper secondary education and training in Norway. This right is valid until the school year
starting when the person concerned turn 24 years of age.
10
further details, see Larsen et al. (2018). The data collection was administered by trained
researchers present at each school, to avoid strain on the schools and the teachers. The
measures included in the survey are all validated measures showing good psychometric
properties in other studies in the Norwegian context of youth.
Measures
Mental health problems were measured by joint symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed
with the short form of the Symptom Check List (SCL-5) (Tambs & Moum, 1993), a five-item
instrument measured on a Likert scale with four response alternatives: not bothered at all, a
little bit bothered, quite much bothered and very much bothered. Internal consistency was
excellent with Cronbach’s = .90. The scale items were summarized into a sum score, and
treated as a continuous variable in further analyses.
Loneliness was assessed with the Loneliness scale (adapted for Norway by
Mittelmark, Aarø, Henriksen, Siqveland & Torsheim, 2004), a six-item instrument measured
on a Likert scale with five response alternatives: very much, quite a bit, somewhat, only a
little and not at all. Internal consistency was good with Cronbach’s = .79. The scale items
were summarized into a sum score, and treated as a continuous variable in further analyses.
Perceived Family Wealth (PFW) was used as a proxy for family socioeconomic status.
PFW is a single item asking for the subjective perception of family socioeconomic standing
through the question: “How well-off is your family?” with response categories very well-off,
well-off, somewhat well-off, not well-off and poorly off. This item has been used widely in the
Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children-study in previous studies of SES in relation to
adolescent health and behavior outcomes (Bujis et al., 2016; Currie et al., 2010; Moor et al.,
.
11
2015; Pfortner, Gunter, Levin, Torsheim & Richter, 2014; Zaborskis, Sumskas, Maser &
Pudule, 2006;).
Information on gender (boy/girl) and education program (academic/vocational) was
obtained from registry data provided by the counties in which the project schools belong.
Information on ethnicity was collected through self-report on the question “Where were you
born?”, with the option of ticking off a country on a drop-down list of all world countries.
Randomisation
Random allocation of schools into comparison groups was done by researchers without
prior knowledge of the recruited schools. The allocation was done through a computer
generated randomization list. Stratified randomization by county was practiced to
ensure equal representation of intervention and control groups across counties. More
details on the randomization procedure is found in Larsen et al. (2018).
Statistical analyses
Data were analyzed using Stata version 15.0 (www.stata.com). Sum scores were calculated
for the SCL-5 and Loneliness measures. The sum scores were then divided by the number of
items. Evaluation of effect was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle, and
adjusted for the clustered nature of the data using a four-level restricted linear mixed model,
including random and fixed effects. The random effects are included to account for clustering
within school, within class and within individual across time. Alpha levels were set at p .05.
Data were examined for systematic differences in attrition based on gender, PFW, school
specialization, and outcome variables (loneliness and mental health problems). No
statistically significant differences in gender or PFW were identified. A small statistically
significant difference was found for school specialization, loneliness, and mental health
problems. This difference might be due to students with mental health issues avoiding the
survey, or because these students had already quit school before follow-up. Missing data were
not imputed, but handled with full information maximum likelihood estimation in regression
12
analyses.
Ethical approval
The COMPLETE study was registered and approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research
Data. The study was also registered in the Clinical.Trials.gov register (registration number
NCT03382080). For further details, see Larsen et al. (2018).
Results
Participants
The baseline characteristics showed an even distribution of gender, PFW and ethnicity across
all three groups (interventions and control) (Table 1). There were between 43% and 50% girls
in the groups, 64–68% reported being in the upper middle PFW category and 87–93% were
ethnic Norwegian. There was a slightly less even distribution of school programs in the
groups, with only 38% of the single-tier group (I1, who received DSP only) attending
vocational education compared with 60% of the multitier group (I2, who received DSP and
MHST) and 63% in the control group. The mean age at baseline was 16.82 years. A total of
2254 students provided survey data at baseline and 2326 at T1. 1937 (85%) students
participated at both baseline and T1. The missing in T1 is assumed to be at random. Though
we do not know exactly why students did not attend, the impression from the data collection
is that the reasons are largely unrelated to the outcomes, e.g. sick leave, dentist appointments,
and a few classes were absent due to field trips or practice work.
[Insert Table 1 here]
Intervention effects
The intra class correlation coefficient (ICC) was 1%, for the school level, and thus small for
13
the school level, larger for the class level (7–9%), and largest for the individual level (64–
67%).
The mean outcomes for both mental health problems and for loneliness increased
from baseline to follow-up (T1). An increase in the score is interpreted as the student getting
lonelier and experiencing increased mental health problems. Mental health problems
increased by 0.08 for the control group, 0.11 for I1 and 0.06 for I2. Loneliness increased by
0.08 in the control group, by 0.7 in I1, and by 0.01 in I2.
The intervention effect is determined by the time treatment interaction listed under
fixed effects in Table 2.
[Insert Table 2 here]
The interaction coefficient shows the relative development in outcomes for the
intervention groups compared with the reference (control) group. The intervention effect for
mental health problems was −0.01 (CI: −0.09, 0.07) for I1 and −0.04 (CI: −0.12, 0.03) for I2,
neither being significant. The intervention effect for loneliness was −0.01 (CI: −0.08, 0.09)
for I1 and -0.08 (CI: -0.15, 0.00) and not significant. The intervention effects are displayed in
Figure 2.
[Insert Figure 2 here]
Subgroup analysis
There were differences between genders in both the levels of mental health problems and
loneliness at baseline. Girls had a mean level for mental health problems of 2.05 (SD: 0.82)
and boys had a mean level of 1.54 (SD: 0.69), with both experiencing an increase in mental
health problems at T1. Concerning loneliness, girls reported higher levels of loneliness at
14
baseline with a mean of 2.34 (SD: 0.81) compared with boys who had a mean of 2.16 (SD:
0.75). Only girls reported an increase in mean levels of loneliness at T1.
Using a three-way interaction between gender, time and treatment, we found that the
intervention effect for girls in I2 for mental health problems was significant with an effect of
−0.17 (CI: −0.32, −0.01) (p = .033). The loneliness outcome was not significant at subgroup
level (gender). All intervention effects by gender are displayed in Figure 3. The three-way
interaction between SES subgroups, time and treatment was not significant.
[Insert Figure 3 here]
Discussion
Previous research has found that the period around starting upper secondary schooling can be
demanding (Eccles & Roeser, 2009; 2011) in terms of mental and psychosocial health
(Bakken 2017; 2018). The purpose of the interventions evaluated in this study is to buffer the
often observed increase in loneliness and mental health problems over this period. However,
in this study, the overall mean level of mental health problems and loneliness increased for
the two intervention groups as well as for the control group from baseline to follow-up.
Furthermore, the results showed no effect of the intervention on mental health problems and
loneliness on students in either of the intervention groups. The results indicated only a minor
effect of the intervention on mental health problems for girls in I2. There were no significant
differences between SES subgroups. There could be several reasons for the increase in mental
health problems and loneliness as well as not finding significant effects of the intervention.
The shift from lower secondary- to upper secondary school is associated with risk,
and requires the facilitation of a good and secure start-up and integration processes in the new
school (Eccles & Roeser, 2009; 2011). Our results support the notion of a challenging period
when starting up in upper secondary high school as we found an increase in both outcome
15
measures in all three groups. This is an important finding in itself, as these can lead to
negative youth development and need to be prevented.
Previous research have showed gender differences in prevalence of mental health
problems (Bakken, 2017; Bakken 2018; Stoltenberg, 2015). Although the effect are very
small, results showed some effect on girls in the multi-tier group, as they had a less negative
development on mental health problems compared to girls in the single-tier and control
group. As girls in general reports higher levels of mental health problems (Bakken, 2017;
Bakken 2018; Stoltenberg, 2015) the findings in this study are somewhat promising. One
explanation can be that in general, when girls experience emotional distress, they are more
likely to seek support and express their feelings than boys. Therefore, they may get more
support, which may contribute to a positive emotional modification (Rose & Rudolph, 2006)
and reduced experience of mental health problems (Derdikman-Eiron et al., 2012). As the
intervention did not have any mitigating effect on boys in this study, one could question
whether there is a need for more attention to gender differences in interventions like this one.
Bakken (2018) found a negative trend in the last two youth surveys in Norway with an
increase in reported mental health problems also among boys. A finding underscoring the
need for researchers to take into consideration gender when designing mental health
promoting intervention in future.
The lack of effects might also be related to the timeframe. It takes time to establish a
systematic focus on mental health promotion and improve the psychosocial environment in
schools (Durlak & Dupre, 2008). Studies show that the psychosocial environment
traditionally has had little focus both nationally and internationally (Holen & Waagene, 2014;
Samdal & Rowling, 2011; 2015), even if it is considered an important tool for mental health
promotion and the prevention of dropout in school (Lillejord et al., 2015). Within this project,
the timeframe might have been too tight, as the schools only had three or four months
16
between deciding to participate in the study and the intervention starting. During this time,
the school had to train teachers and peer mentors, and put the Dream School resource group
in place. Those within the multi-tier group also had to establish the MHST, develop new
routines for student follow-up, relocate to a team office, and clarify roles and responsibilities
within the school. In line with other research, readiness for implementation might have been
jeopardized, which consequently influenced the effects (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Oterkiil &
Ertesvåg, 2012). However, as we did find some mitigating effects for girls, one could
anticipate that with more time for planning and preparation, there might be stronger effects in
the future. A final point to be made is the fact that we only found mitigating effects for girls
in the multitier group suggests that well-targeted efforts toward individual learners, together
with a universal approach might have more impact on reducing further negative development.
This should however be interpreted with caution due to very small effects.
Strengths and limitations
The randomized controlled trial design with a large number of participants, and the
relatively long follow-up period of 8–9 months, are considered strengths in this study.
Although the lack of statistical power due to the low number of participating schools is a
weakness. The self-selection of schools to the study may also have influenced the
generalizability, as the schools included may have been more open to enhancing the school
environment. However, results suggest that schools varied a lot in their readiness to
implement, and thus may be representative of other schools. As described earlier, attrition
from baseline to first follow-up could be due to more mental health problems. However, the
probit analyses to examine missing patterns indicated a very small significant difference.
Also, attrition could be due to unobserved aspects not taken into account in this study, such as
prevalence of absence or drop-out. Further, using only a self-reported item of PFW is limited
for capturing the complex dimensions of SES. Although this item has been found to measure
17
SES in relation to health and health behaviors in previous studies (Bujis et al., 2016; Currie et
al., 2010; Moor et al., 2015; Pfortner et al., 2014; Zaborskis et al., 2006), additional
measurements would have to be included used to capture different aspects of SES.
Conclusion
The intervention had an small mitigating effect in the multitier group on mental health in
girls, suggesting that the combination of a universal approach and more targeted effort for
those in need may be most beneficial. The fact that everyone had an increase in mental health
problems and loneliness also found in previous studies (Bakken 2017; 2018) suggests that
there is a need for schools to work systematically to create positive and supportive
environments for their students, to mitigate the challenges of moving from one school level to
the next.
Acknowledgments
We sincerely thank all the participants for their efforts in planning and carrying out the
interventions, and for complying with the survey and interviews. We would also like to thank
the Ministry of Education and Integration for funding (project grant number 20161789).
Disclosure statement
There are no potential conflicts of interest.
References
Voksne for Barn [Adults for Children, AfC]. (2017). Drømmeskolen. Retrieved from
http://www.vfb.no/no/vart_arbeid/psykisk_helse_i_skolen/drommeskolen/Dr
%C3%B8mmeskolen.b7C_wtLM4L.ips
18
Allen, K. A., & Kern, M. L. (2017). School Belonging in Adolescents: Theory, Research and
Practice. Springer Singapore.
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools need
to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology
Review, 30 (1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8
Anvik, C. & Gustavsen, A. (2012). Ikke slipp meg – unge, psykiske helseproblemer,
utdanning og arbeid [Don’t let me go – Young, mental health problems, education and
work]. (NF-Report 13/2012). Retrieved from:
http://www.nordlandsforskning.no/getfile.php/132436-
1412587259/Dokumenter/Rapporter/2012/Rapport_13_2012.pdf
Bakken, A. (2017). Ungdata. Nasjonale resultater 2017 [Young data. National results 2017].
(NOVA-Report 10/2017). Retrieved from:
http://www.hioa.no/content/download/142592/4031475/file/Opprettet-Ungdata-
rapport-2017-4-august-2017-web-utg-med-omslag.pdf
Bakken, A. (2018). Ungdata. Nasjonale resultater 2018 [Young data. National results 2018].
(NOVA-Report 10/2018). Retrieved from:
http://www.forebygging.no/Global/Ungdata-2018.%20Nasjonale%20resultater.pdf
Birkeland, M. S., Breivik, K. & Wold, B. (2014). Peer acceptance protects global self-esteem
from negative effects of low closeness to parents during adolescence and early
adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 70–80.
https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-013-9929-1
Buijs, T., Maes, L., Salonna, F., Damme, J. V. Hublet, A. Kebza, V. … Clercq, B. D. (2016).
The role of community social capital in the relationship between socioeconomic status
and adolescent life satisfaction: mediating or moderating? Evidence from Czech data.
International Journal for Equity in Health, 15 (203). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-
016-0490-x
Currie C., Griebler, R., Inchley, J., Theunissen, A., Molcho, M., Samdal, O. & Dür W. (eds)
(2010). Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) Study Protocol:
Background, Methodology and Mandatory Items for the 2009/2010 Survey.
Edinburgh: CAHRU & Vienna: LBIHPR. Found at : http://www.hbsc.org.
COMPLETE. (2018). COMPLETE-prosjektet: Gode psykososiale læringsmiljø betrar
gjennomføring i den vidaregåande skulen [The COMPLETE Project: Good
psychosocial environments improve the completion of upper secondary school].
Retrieved from https://complete.w.uib.no/
19
Danielsen, A. G., Samdal, O., Hetland, J. & Wold, B. (2009). School-related social support
and students’ perceived life satisfaction. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 303–
320. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.4.303-320
Derdikman-Eiron, R., Indredavik, M. S., Bakken, I. H., Bratberg, G. H., Hjemdal, O. &
Colton, M. (2012). Gender differences in psychosocial functioning of adolescents
with symptoms of anxiety and depression: longitudinal findings from the Nord-
Trøndelag Health Study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47(11),
1855–1863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-012-0492-y
Durlak, J. A. & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting
implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D. & Schellinger, K. B. (2011).
The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of
school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x
Eccles, J. S. & Roeser, R. W. (2009). Schools, academic motivation, and stage‐environment
fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology.
Volume 1: Individual bases of adolescent development (pp. 404–434). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy001013
Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2011). Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2010.00725.x
Frostad, P., Pijl, S. J. & Mjaavatn, P. E. (2014). Losing all interest in school: Social
participation as a predictor of the intention to leave upper secondary school early.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59, 110–122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.904420
Holen, S. & Waagene, E. (2014). Psykisk helse i skolen: Utdanningsdirektoratets
spørreundersøkelse blant lærere, skoleledere og skoleeiere [Mental health in schools:
The Directorate of Education’s survey among teachers, school administrators and
school owners] (NIFU-Report, 48/2014). Retrieved from
https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/280087
Holsen, I., Larsen, T., Tjomsland, H. E. & Servan, A. K. (2015). Exploring the importance of
peers as leaders in the Dream School Program: From the perspectives of peer leaders,
teachers and principals. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 8, 4–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.2014.978550
20
Holsen, I., Larsen, T. & Årdal, E. (2016). Pilotevaluering II av Drømmeskolen 2014–2016.
En effekt og prosessevaluering i tre videregående skoler skoler [Pilot evaluation of
the dream school 2014-2016: An effect and process evaluation in three upper
secondary schools]. Retrieved from: http://filer.uib.no/psyfa/HEMIL-
senteret/COMPLETE/Rapport%20fra%20pilotevaluering%20av%20Drømmeskolen
%202016.pd
Kiefer, S. M., Alley, K. M., & Ellerbrock, C. R. (2015). Teacher and peer support for young
adolescents’ motivation, engagement, and school belonging. Research in Middle
Level Education,, 38(8), 1-18.
Krane, V., Karlsson, B., Ness, O. & Kim, H. S. (2016). Teacher–student relationship, student
mental health, and dropout from upper secondary school: A literature review.
Scandinavian Psychologist, 3, e11. https://doi.org/10.15714/scandpsychol.3.e11
Larsen, T., Holsen, I., Tjomsland, H., Servan, A., Tyssebotn, G., & Rostad, Å. (2014).
Pilotevaluering av drømmeskolen: En case studie av 5 skoler [Pilot evaluation of the
dream school: A case study of 5 schools]. Retrieved from:
http://filer.uib.no/psyfa/HEMIL-senteret/COMPLETE/Rapport%20fra
%20pilotevaluering%20av%20Drømmekolen%202012-2013.pdf
Larsen, T., Urke, H. B., Holsen, I., Anvik, C. H., Olsen, T., Waldahl, R. H. ... & Hansen, T. B.
(2018). COMPLETE – a school-based intervention project to increase completion of
upper secondary school in Norway: Study protocol for a cluster randomized
controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 18, 340. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-
5241-z
Lerner, R. M., von Eye, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lewin-Bizan, S. (2009). Exploring the
foundations and functions of adolescent thriving within the 4-H study of positive
youth development: A view of the issues. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30(5), 567–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.002
Lillejord, S., Halvorsrud, K., Ruud, E., Morgan, K., Freyr, T., Fischer-Griffiths, P. … &
Manger, T. (2015). Frafall i videregående opplæring: En systematisk
kunnskapsoversikt. [Drop out in upper secondary education: A systematic review].
Oslo: Kunnskapssenter for utdanning.
Markussen, E., Frøseth, M. W. & Sandberg, N. (2011). Reaching for the unreachable:
Identifying factors predicting early school leaving and non-completion in Norwegian
upper secondary education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(3),
225–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.576876
21
Markussen, E., & Seland, I. (2012). Å redusere bortvalg-bare skolenes ansvar? En
undersøkelse av bortvalg ved de videregående skolene i Akershus fylkeskommune
skoleåret 2010–2011. [Reducing dropout-only schools’ responsibility? A survey of
dropout at secondary schools in Akershus County Council 2010–2011]. (NIFU-Report
6/2012). Retrieved from
https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/280856/NIFUrapport2012-
6.pdf?sequence=1
Opplæringslova [The Norwegian Education Act]. (1998). Lov om grunnskolen og den
vidaregåande opplæringa (LOV-1998-07-17-61). Retrieved from:
https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1998-07-17-61
Mittelmark, M. B., Aarø, L. E., Henriksen, S. G., Siqveland, J., & Torsheim, T. (2004).
Chronic social stress in the community and associations with psychological distress: A
social psychological perspective. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion,
6(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623730.2004.9721919
Moor, I., Richter, M., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Ottová-Jordan, V., Elgar, F. J. & Pförtner, T.
(2015). Trends in social inequalities in adolescent health complaints from 1994 to
2010 in Europe, North America and Israel: The HBSC study. European Journal of
Public Health, 25(suppl_2), 57-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv028
Nes, R. B. & Clench-Aas, J. (2011). Psykisk helse i Norge. Tilstandsrapport med
internasjonale sammenhenger. [Mental Health in Norway.
State report with international contexts] (Report 2/2011). Retrieved from:
https://www.fhi.no/globalassets/dokumenterfiler/rapporter/2011/rapport-20112-
psykisk-helse-i-norge.-tilstandsrapport-med-internasjonale-sammenligninger..pdf
Niemiec, C. P. & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the
classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. School Field,
7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1477878509104318
Norwegian Institute of Public Health. (2014). Psykiske plager og lidelser hos barn og unge
[Mental disorders among children and adolescents in Norway]. Retrieved from
http://www.fhi.no/artikler/?id=84062
Nordland Research Institute (NRI). (2017). About us. Retrieved from
http://www.nordlandsforskning.no/english/category296.html
Oterkiil, C. & Ertesvåg, S. K. (2012). Schools’ readiness and capacity to improve matter.
Education Inquiry, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v3i1.22014
22
Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B.
& Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for
kindergarten to eighth‐grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews.
(Technical Report). Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505370.pdf
Pförtner, T., Günther, S., Levin, K. A., Torsheim, T. & Richter, M. (2015). The use of
parental occupation in adolescent health surveys. An application of ISCO-based
measures of occupational status. J Epidemiol Community Health, 69, 177-184.
https://doi.org/177–184. 10.1136/jech-2014-204529
Ramsdal, G., Gjærum, R. G. & Wynn, R. (2013). Dropout and early unemployment.
International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 75–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.06.011
Rose, A. J. & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship
processes: potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls
and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 98–131. https://.doi.org/10.1037%2F0033-
2909.132.1.98
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand
hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–
78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Samdal, O. & Rowling, L. (2011). Theoretical and empirical base for implementation
components of health promoting schools. Health Education, 111(5), 367–390.
https://doi.org/ 10.1108/09654281111161211
Samdal, O. & Rowling, L. (2015). Implementation strategies to promote and sustain health
and learning in school. In V. Simovska & P. Mannix-McNamara (Eds.), Schools for
health and sustainability: Theory, research and practice (pp. 233–252). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.
Settertobulte, W. & Matos, M. (2004). Peers and health. In C. Currie, C. Roberts, A. Morgan,
R. Smith, W. Settertobulte, O. Samdal & V. B. Rasmussen (Eds.), Young people’s
health in context: Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) study:
International report from the 2001/2002 survey. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO.
Skogen, J. C., Smith, O. R. F., Aarø, L. E., Siqveland, J. & Øverland, S. (2018). Barn og
unges psykiske helse: Forebyggende og helsefremmende folkehelsetiltak. En
kunnskapsoversikt [Mental health among children and adolescents. Health-promoting
23
and preventive public health interventions. A summary of evidence about effects].
(Report 2018). Retrieved from:
https://www.fhi.no/globalassets/dokumenterfiler/rapporter/2018/barn_og_unges_psyki
ske_helse_forebyggende.pdf
Statistics Norway. (2013). Gjennomstrømning i videregående opplæring, 2007–2012.
[Education statistics from 2007 to 2012]. Retrieved from https://www.ssb.no/vgogjen/
Stoltenberg, C. (2015). Helsetilstanden i Norge [Health conditions in Norway]. Retrieved
from https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/277374
Tambs, K. & Moum, T. (1993). How well can a few questionnaire items indicate anxiety and
depression?. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 87(5), 364-367.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1993.tb03388.x
Tian, L., Chen, H. & Huebner, E. S. (2014). The longitudinal relationships between basic
psychological needs satisfaction at school and school-related subjective well-being in
adolescents. Social Indicators Research, 119(1), 353-372.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0495-4
Tian, L., Liu, B., Huang, S. & Huebner, E. S. (2013). Perceived social support and school
well-being among Chinese early and middle adolescents: The mediational role of self-
esteem. Social Indicators Research, 113(3), 991–1008.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s1120501201238.
Tian, L., Zhao, J. & Huebner, E. S. (2015). School-related social support and subjective well-
being in school among adolescents: The role of self-system factors. Journal of
Adolescence, 45, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.09.003
Weare, K. & Nind, M. (2011). Mental health promotion and problem prevention in schools:
what does the evidence say? Health Promotion International, 26(suppl_1), 29–69.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar075
World Health Organization (WHO). (2014). Health for the world’s adolescents: A second
chance in the second decade. Retrieved from:
http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/second-decade/en/.
Zaborskis, A., Sumskas, L., Maser, M. & Pudule, I. (2006). Trends in drinking habits among
adolescents in the Baltic countries over the period of transition: HBSC survey results,
1993-2002. BMC Public Health, 6(67). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-6-67
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A. & McGregor, L. (2006).
Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent
engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6), 911–933.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.008
24
25
