Cost-Effectiveness of a School-Based Social and Emotional Learning Intervention: Evidence from a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial of the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies Curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: School-based social and emotional learning interventions can improve wellbeing and educational attainment in childhood. However, there is no evidence on their effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) or on their cost effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) curriculum. METHODS: A prospective economic evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomised controlled trial of the PATHS curriculum implemented in the Greater Manchester area of England. In total, 23 schools (n = 2676 children) were randomised to receive PATHS, and 22 schools (n = 2542 children) were randomised to continue with usual practice. A UK health service perspective and a 2-year time horizon were used. HRQoL data were collected prospectively from all children in the trial via the Child Health Utility Nine-Dimension questionnaire. Micro-costing was undertaken to estimate the intervention costs. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. RESULTS: The mean incremental cost of the PATHS curriculum compared with usual practice was £32.01 per child, and mean incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were positive (0.0019; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0009-0.0029). Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the expected incremental net benefit of introducing the PATHS curriculum was £5.56 per child (95% CI - 14.68 to 25.81), and the probability of cost effectiveness was 84%. However, this probability fell to 0% when intervention costs included teacher's salary costs. CONCLUSION: The PATHS curriculum has the potential to be cost effective at standard UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. However, the sensitivity of the cost-effectiveness estimates to key assumptions means decision makers should seek further information before allocating scarce public resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85087674.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".