Funded by
Medical Research Council
Led by Dr. Kaili Rimfeld (Royal Holloway), with Prof. Dan Anderberg (Royal Holloway) and Prof. Ragnhild Eek Brandlistuen (Norwegian Institute of Public Health)
About three children in every classroom have a diagnosable mental health problem, and we still know surprisingly little about why. Young people spend a big part of their lives at school, so we want to understand how school experiences affect their mental health, both at the time and as they grow up.
To do this, we’re looking at information from more than 100,000 young people in the UK and Norway who have taken part in long-running studies since they were born. Following the same people over many years helps us see which parts of school life make the biggest difference.
Our Student Advisory Board advises us at every stage, from shaping our questions to making sense of what we find and sharing it, so that the research stays focused on what matters to students.
We hope what we learn will help schools and policymakers better support young people’s mental health.
We looked at more than 6,500 young people followed from age 7 to 21 in the Twins Early Development Study.
Students who felt more negatively about their school environment tended to have more mental health difficulties, both at the time and years later.
The link was smaller after accounting for genetics, family background and earlier mental health, but it was still there. Much of it seemed to reflect shared genetic influences.
Because this kind of study can’t prove cause and effect, it’s an important first step rather than the final word.
This is our plan for the next step. We’ll use the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study, which follows more than 100,000 children, to look at how the classroom environment relates to children’s mental health between ages 5 and 14.
Parents, teachers and children each report on mental health, so we can check whether the links hold up whoever is answering.
Because the study includes brothers and sisters and genetic data, we can also separate the role of school from the role of genes.
Publishing the plan before we look at the data is good scientific practice, because it shows our questions weren’t shaped by the results.