Improving primary school health education through action research : a case study

Limited research has been conducted concerning the actual practice of health education in Victorian schools. This study investigates the health education curriculum at a large primary school in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. The investigation involves a critical analysis of current practices in health education in the upper school through the development of a ‘small’ action research group. Data were gathered through document collection, questionnaires, interviews, discussions, diary and reflective journal entries. The action research group, consisting of the teacher-researcher and upper school teachers, developed, implemented and reflected upon units of work piloted with upper school students. Alternative approaches to health education were explored. The aim was to accommodate critically informed discourse amongst colleagues to promote self-reflective enquiry and facilitate improvements to existing pedagogic practices. During the course of the investigation, factors limiting and facilitating action research and curriculum change in health education, became evident. These included personal, practical, curriculum and organisational constraints operating externally and internally on the school and classroom environments. Despite these constraints, it was demonstrated in this study, that action research can contribute to the improvement of pedagogic practices in health education. Small ‘authentic’ action research projects may provide alternative internal professional development structures for teachers and consequently improve learning opportunities for students.

Assessing cost-effectiveness in mental health: helping policy-makers prioritize and plan health services

Objective: We assessed, from a health sector perspective, options for change that could improve the efficiency of Australia's current mental health services by directing available resources toward 'best practice' cost-effective services.

Method: We summarize cost-effectiveness results of a range of interventions for depression, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and anxiety disorders that have been presented in previous papers in this journal. Recommendations for change are formulated after taking into account 'second-filter criteria' of equity, feasibility of implementing change, acceptability to stakeholders and the strength of the evidence. In addition, we estimate the impact on total expenditure if the recommended mental health interventions for depression and schizophrenia are to be implemented in Australia.

Results: There are cost-effective treatment options for mental disorders that are currently underutilized (e.g. cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for depression and anxiety, bibliotherapy for depression, family interventions for schizophrenia and clozapine for the worst course of schizophrenia). There are also less cost-effective treatments in current practice (e.g. widespread use of olanzapine and risperidone in the treatment of established schizophrenia and, within those atypicals, a preference for olanzapine over risperidone). Feasibility of funding mechanisms and training of staff are the main second-filter issues for CBT and family interventions. Acceptability to various stakeholders is the main barrier to implementation of more cost-effective drug treatment regimens. More efficient drug intervention options identified for schizophrenia would cost A$68 million less than current practice. These savings would more than cover the estimated A$36M annual cost of delivering family interventions to the 51% of people with schizophrenia whom we estimated to be eligible and this would lead to an estimated 12% improvement in their health status. Implementing recommended strategies for depression would cost A$121M annually for the 24% of people with depression who seek care currently, but do not receive an evidence-based treatment.

Conclusions: Despite considerable methodological problems, a range of cost-effective and less cost-effective interventions for major mental disorders can be discerned. The biggest hurdle to implementation of more efficient mental health services is that this change would require reallocation of funds between interventions, between disorders and between service providers with different funding mechanisms.