Health promotion research experiences two parallel, yet different, trends within evaluation of interventions. The first is that research should be more societally relevant through collaboration with, and for, society; the second is to determine the effects of specific interventions by utilizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aim to discuss the synergies and tensions involved in the process of implementing COMPLETE – a collaborative health promotion project in upper secondary education involving an RCT and a process evaluation. COMPLETE investigated whether systematic work in a class and school psychosocial environment affected students’ experience of the psychosocial environment, mental health, school performance, absenteeism and completion of upper secondary education. An important prerequisite for the project was that research should be developed and carried out together with practice and not just in or on practice. The results showed the importance of a having a project council including all stakeholders to enable elaborating and negotiating worldviews and perceptions of knowledge, as well as research ethics, among the stakeholders. This was important to resolve the tension between the results from different scientific and theoretical approaches and stakeholders view of the “objective” and the “experienced” change, to reach a common agreement on the results in the project.
- Psychosocial environment
- Collaborative research
- Stakeholder involvement
- Upper secondary
- Multi-tier intervention
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Cartwright, N. (2010). What are randomised controlled trials good for? Philosophical Studies, 147(1), 59.
Creswell, J. (2016). Research design (4th ed.). Sage.
Griebler, U., Rojatz, D., Simovska, V., & Forster, R. (2014). Effects of student participation in school health promotion: A systematic review. Health Promotion International, first published online January 6, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dat090
Grossman, J., & Mackenzie, F. J. (2005). The randomized controlled trial: Gold standard, or merely standard? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48(4), 516–534.
Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 821–830.
Henry, T. (2009). When getting it right matters: The case for high-quality policy and program impact evaluations. In S. I. Donaldson, C. Christie, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? (pp. 32–50). Sage.
Krogh, A. H., & Nielsen, M. V. (2017). Succeeding with interactive research: How to manage research with and about society. Research for All, 1(2), 351–364.
Larsen, T. (2016). Shifting towards positive youth development in schools in Norway – Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 18(1), 8–20.
Larsen, T., Urke, H. B., Holsen, I., Anvik, C. H., Olsen, T., Waldahl, R. H., … Hansen, T. B. (2018). COMPLETE – A school-based intervention project to increase completion of upper secondary school in Norway: Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 18(340).
Lillejord, S., Halvorsrud, K., Ruud, E., Morgan, K., Freyr, T., Fischer-Griffiths, P., et al. (2015). Frafall i videregående opplæring: En systematisk kunnskapsoversikt [Student dropout in upper secondary education–A systematic review]. Kunnskapssenter for utdanning.
Marmot, M., Atkinson, T., Bell, J., Black, C., Broadfoot, P., Cumberlege, J., et al. (2010). Fair society, healthy lives. The Marmot review. Institute of Health Equity. https://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review
Pearce, W., & Raman, S. (2014). The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: Challenges of epistemic governance. Policy Sciences, 47(4), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9208-3
Pillas, D., & Suhrcke, M. (2009). Assessing the potential or actual impact on health and health inequalities of policies aiming to improve Early Child Development (ECD) in England (Background report to marmot review). Monograph. https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/15293/. Accessed 3 Oct 2020.
Poulton, R., Caspi, A., Milne, B. J., Thomson, W. M., Taylor, A., Sears, M. R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2002). Association between children’s experience of socioeconomic disadvantage and adult health: A life-course study. The Lancet, 360(9346), 1640–1645. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11602-3
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842–868.
Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press.
Voksne for Barn [Adults for Children]. (2017). Drømmeskolen. Retrieved Sept 7, 2017, from http://www.vfb.no/no/vart_arbeid/psykisk_helse_i_skolen/drommeskolen/Dr%C3%B8mmeskolen.b7C_wtLM4L.ips
Ministry of Education. (2006). White paper 16. (2006-2007) Tidlig innsats for livslang læring [Early intervention for lifelong learning]. Accessed 3 Oct 2020 from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/stmeld-nr-16-2006-2007-/id441395/.
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Larsen, T., Holsen, I., Urke, H.B., Anvik, C.H., Waldahl, R.H. (2022). Doing Collaborative Health Promotion Research in a Complex Setting: Lessons Learned from the COMPLETE Project in Norway. In: Potvin, L., Jourdan, D. (eds) Global Handbook of Health Promotion Research, Vol. 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97212-7_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-97211-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-97212-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)