Using Technology to Engage School and Community Mental Health Personnel in Addressing Students in...

Using Technology to Engage School and Community Mental Health Personnel in

Addressing Students in DistressYolanda Jenkins, Carolyn Givens,

Yvette Jackson, Yingge Lin & Jane Timmons-Mitchell

September 18, 2014

Kognito At-Risk for High School Educators Gatekeeper Training: Ohio

• Part of Ohio’s Campaign for Hope Youth Suicide Prevention Initiative, a Garrett Lee Smith grant funded by SAMHSA

• Ohio Suicide Prevention Foundation (OSPF) is the grantee

• License purchased for all schools in Ohio to use the At-Risk gatekeeper training

Demographics of Participants

• A total of 2378 matched participants were eligible to respond to post-test questions.

• A total of 468 matched participants were eligible to respond to follow-up questions.

• Demographics are presented for the 468 participants who completed pre, post and follow-up administration of questions.

Demographics of Participants (cont’d)

• Most (436) are white and female (328)• Most (315) are teachers; 23% work in

positions that can be characterized as mental health related ( counselors, social workers, psychologists)

• About half are 46 years of age and older• About half have been working in high school

education 23 years or more.

Results: Gatekeeper Behavior Scale

• The Gatekeeper Behavior Scale was developed to assess important dimensions related to identifying and referring students in distress.

• Three subscales: Preparedness, Likelihood and Self-Efficacy, are analyzed separately.

Results: Preparedness

• 443 participants completed pre-test, post-test and follow-up, for a 7% subject loss

• Differences overall from pre-test through follow-up are highly statistically significant

• (p< .0001)

Results: Likelihood

• 443 participants completed pre-test, post-test and follow-up, for a 7% subject loss

• Differences overall from pre-test through follow-up are highly statistically significant

• (p=.007)

Results: Self-Efficacy

• 443 participants completed pre-test, post-test and follow-up, for a 7% subject loss

• Differences overall from pre-test through follow-up are highly statistically significant

• (p< .0001)

Results of Pre-test to Post-test• Compared with pre-test, all questions displayed highly statistically significant differences (p< .0001)from pre-test to post- test

Results of Follow-up

• Compared with pre-test, all questions but one (“Part of the role of educators is to connect students experiencing psychological distress with mental health support services.”) displayed highly statistically significant differences from pre-test to follow-up.

Results of Post-test compared with Follow-up

• Compared with Post-test, most follow-up questions showed a decrement.

• No questions showed improvement from post-test to follow-up administration.

• This is what is expected in an A-B-A withdrawal design; the fact that follow-up scores remained higher than pre-test scores indicates the reliable knowledge acquisition

Questions at Follow-Up

• 484 participants responded to Likert-type questions indicating:

• Increase in the number of students recognized as exhibiting signs of psychological distress (39% agreed or strongly agreed).

• Increase in the number of students approached to discuss concern about psychological distress (34.3% agreed or strongly agreed).

• Increase in the number of referrals for mental health support services (28.9% agreed or strongly agreed).

Participant Awareness

• 58.9% stated that as a result of the course there has been an increase in the number of conversations they had with other adults in their school about students they are concerned about.