Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Analysis of Protective Factors in Schoolchildren in England Using the Dual-factor Model of Mental Health

  • Published:
Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The dual-factor approach to mental health was employed to explore levels and interrelations of protective factors associated with resilience in a dataset of 30,841 schoolchildren aged 11–14 in England. ANOVA was used to contrast levels of protective factors between groups (combinations of higher/lower psychopathology and higher/lower wellbeing) and network analysis to explore protective factor interrelations. Levels of protective factors tended to be highest for those who had higher wellbeing and lower psychopathology (termed ‘complete mental health’). Those with lower levels of protective factors were split between two subpopulations: having lower wellbeing and higher psychopathology (termed ‘troubled’), and having lower wellbeing and lower psychopathology (termed ‘vulnerable’). Analysis of the protective factor networks revealed that the four subpopulations of the model were distinguished by both their overall structure and individual node connectivity (the ‘complete mental health’ subpopulation demonstrated the greatest connectivity), though two were similar: those with higher wellbeing and higher psychopathology (termed ‘symptomatic but content’) and lower wellbeing and higher psychopathology (‘troubled’). The results indicate that while ‘vulnerable’ and ‘symptomatic but content’ may be hard to discriminate conceptually, the former may reflect a lower capacity to cope during periods of adversity (i.e., show resilience). Overall, the results encourage a holistic approach to mental health screening, particularly as children with lower wellbeing had lower levels of the protective factors, regardless of their level of psychopathology. Moreover, interventions to improve protective factors associated with positive development in stressed environments may therefore have a greater impact on improving wellbeing than decreasing symptoms of psychopathology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The HeadStart (HS) survey data used in this study belongs to the Evidence Based Practice Unit (a collaboration between UCL and the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, AFNCCF), who led the HS evaluation. The lead author was granted secure remote access to this data by the principal investigator of the main HS evaluation, Dr. Jessica Deighton. HS data cannot be made publicly available, since consent was not obtained from participants for the public sharing of their survey responses. However, an anonymized version of the survey dataset used in the present paper is available on request from Dr. Jessica Deighton (Jessica.DeightonPhD@annafreud.org) under the following terms: (a) schedule and arrange for site visit to AFNCCF to analyse data (password to user account supplied); (b) analysis to be worked on in situ; (c) results (but not data) taken away. Code is provided in the supplementary material.

References

Download references

Funding

The data used in this study was collected as part of the HeadStart learning programme and supported by funding from The National Lottery Community Fund. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not reflect the views of The National Lottery Community Fund. This research was also supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames at Bart’s Health NHS Trust (NIHR CLAHRC North Thames). The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data analyses were performed by Philip Jefferies. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Philip Jefferies and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip Jefferies.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics Approval

The collation of the original dataset was approved by the University College of London ethics committee (reference: 8097/003; see Deighton et al., 2019) and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jefferies, P., Fritz, J., Deighton, J. et al. Analysis of Protective Factors in Schoolchildren in England Using the Dual-factor Model of Mental Health. Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol 51, 907–920 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-023-01038-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-023-01038-z

Keywords

Navigation