Primary Outcomes (Feasibility)
We planned to consent up to 60 participants with the aim to retain at least 30 until study completion. This outcome was achieved. A total of 53 potential participants were approached over a period of 36 months, for an average of 1.5 potential participants approached per month. Of those approached n=49 (92.5%) were screened, 100% of which met study inclusion criteria and were hence successfully enrolled (n=49). Of those enrolled, 61.2% (n=30) were retained until study completion. Thirteen (26.5%) withdrew prior to the fourth week of study intervention and 6 (12.2%) prior to the eight week of study intervention (Figure 1).
Data was collected over a period of 38 months. Of the 49 enrolled participants, questionnaires were completed by 48 (98.0%) participants at week 0, 34 (69.4%) at week 4, and 23 (47.0%) at week 8. Data collection took place over a period of 47 months from January 11, 2016 to December 11, 2019. Computer-based data entry was successfully completed with 100% of collected data being entered into the study database.
Quantitative data is represented graphically as trends via Figures 2, 3 and 4.
Two minor protocol deviations were noted during the conduct of the study. Once weekly follow-ups were implemented rather than the planned twice weekly follow-ups. We also offered a snack gift card to the participants in the later part of the study, rather than an actual snack. These changes were made based on suggestions by participants feedback during the initial focus groups.
The calculated cost of the intervention per participant was CAD $176.20.
The Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU) community organization, our initial recruiting partner, was willing to conduct the study, however, it was felt that they were unable to provide consistent support to participants and the team. Hence, we determined it would not be possible to meet recruitment goals from this organization alone. Towards this end, we approached two other community organizations including the London Intercommunity Health Centre (LIHC) and the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA). The LIHC and CMHA turned out to be enthusiastic partners, working with the study team to provide available appropriate space during a time/date that was felt to be more convenient for participants. The facilitators of the SKY Schools program were able to successfully deliver the intervention, however during the focus groups participants informed study staff that on a few occasions, the intervention facilitators arrived late and in one instance, failed to adequately communicate to study staff and participants that a follow-up SKY Schools session had been rescheduled.
Thirty participants attended focus groups, with group size ranging from n=2-9 and a mean group size of n=6.
No Serious Adverse Events (SAE’s) were reported during the study. Reported adverse effects, by a single participant, included the following a) feeling as if one couldn’t move their hands, b) a sensation of ants walking on the skin, c) being uncomfortable while laying on a yoga mat, d) a headache, and f) muscle soreness. No other adverse events were reported. This study did not utilize a formal method of collecting adverse events, rather questions were posed by the study staff during the focus groups asking each participant to report any perceived harms associated with participating in SKY Schools.
Qualitative Outcomes (Focus Group)
Nine major themes and 42 corresponding sub-themes were identified from the analysis of the focus group transcripts (Table 2). Qualitative results were found to be overall cohesive with the quantitative results. During focus groups participants noted that some participants dropped out of the intervention, identified what they believed were the reasons for withdrawals, some participants expressed an improvement in emotional regulation while others did not, and some enjoyed the social aspect of the program while others felt this needed to be improved. This is consistent with the quantitative findings of a 61% retention rate, non-significant improvement in mental health symptoms, and an unchanged community integration.
The nine major themes and sub-themes are detailed below.
Rewarding Experience
Many participants found SKY Schools to be a helpful technique that led to an improved lifestyle and sense of wellbeing. They found the techniques easy to learn and felt it was a practical tool to establish in their lives. Participants provided a positive response to SKY Schools, indicated it was better than anticipated, found it to be practical and reported an improved lifestyle:
“For me personally I think it was better than I thought it was going to be just because there was such a wide variety of techniques; it wasn’t just focusing on yoga or the mindfulness or the breathing and it kind of encompassed everything, which was nice. So each strategy so to speak, I feel you could either you could do any of those individually and they would all be effective but because we were doing all of them, I felt it bettered the results, and I also felt that the home practice was something easy enough to remember, the order of the movements and the breathing techniques and it wasn’t like it took two hours to do or something. It’s very functional in day-to-day life”.
Improved Emotional Adaptability
Participants reported multiple emotional benefits of SKY Schools including a sense of relaxation and restoration, improved emotional regulation, and improved focus. Participants had a sense of vitality after attending SKY Schools and felt it could be used to cope with daily stressors. Participants indicated that SKY Schools would help them to focus and stay in the present moment:
“It was just relaxing, soothing. I've never done meditation or yoga before. So I was very optimistic, not optimistic, whatever the opposite of optimistic is, I was that I'm just like oh this is going to be ridiculous... yeah skeptical... And I didn't think I was even going to be interested, but after a couple of days...I felt good, felt energized, I felt relaxed...This is a weird hobby of mine, but I go to a graveyard that's already negative. I go to a graveyard and I don't really go to the graveyard to visit anybody. I go there cause there's deer. And then if I can get close to a deer, it feels really peaceful. And you feel like closer to nature, but then as soon as you step outside of that graveyard, you start seeing traffic. You get that feeling like, Oh man, it's time to go back to life. You know? But with the meditation it felt like I was in a forest with deer relaxed, but then when I left, I was like, okay, now it's time to go back to life, but I probably don't want to do that...”
Interpersonal Dynamics
Participants appreciated the atmosphere of the group and the social facilitation it provided, reporting it made them feel more comfortable to try something new, among supportive peers. They expressed that they would have preferred to have a more structured interaction such as a meet and greet and social dining. Participants felt that there was an optimal level of familiarity with their group that would increase comfort without overshadowing the purpose of the program. They identified pre-existing peer relationships as being both helpful and distracting. Participants indicated that gender played a role on their experience in the SKY Schools program and their comfort was increased by the presence of both a male and female facilitator. Study participants were diverse and joined the study with a large spectrum of experiences resulting in different pre-existing levels of trust, including some participants who indicated they lacked trust in others. This pre-existing ability to share and be open, or not, led participants to have different experiences:
“Personally, it takes me a long time to be open and trust people so like actually being able to go and say, ‘well I’m having these problems’ was an issue for me because it’s like talk talking about things that you would talk to a counselor about and then these people you don’t really know anything about. So, it was kind of challenging regardless of if it was one day, two days, it wouldn’t really have made a difference.”
Personal Investment
Participants expressed that the perceived outcome of participating in SKY Schools was proportional to their own level of involvement. They identified that there was a varying level of participation between participants, dwindling participation and a progressive commitment from participants who were retained in the study:
“I think it [number of withdrawn participants] has less to do with the program... I think it has very little to do with how this program is structured. I think it has everything to do with...the types of kids that are involved and then it doesn't matter what it is at that point...I don't think that focusing on how to change it is going to benefit. I think, no matter how it's structured, you're still gonna have people drop off over time... I think that's why a lot of people don't show up because... it [SKY Schools Program] doesn't have any place in the minds, in the greater context of what you're doing”.
Underwhelming or Negative
Participants provided a varied view of their experience in the SKY Schools program. Some participants indicated that no improvement was seen, while others had a tepid attitude toward SKY Schools and indicated their personal growth was stagnant. A few identified facilitators to be too overenthusiastic which was off-putting:
“I personally didn’t really get a lot of benefits from it [SKY Schools]. I did it for about two months and then stopped using it because I wasn’t noticing any differences. I do a general meditation practice on my own that I’ve been doing for like 10 years so I find that more helpful for me.”
Inadequate Coordination
Participants indicated that there were logistical issues which caused significant barriers to attending SKY Schools regularly. These included things such as transportation, time of day for the program, childcare and communication about the program itself. Participants felt they were not provided with an adequate process for reporting and escalating logistical program issues. Participants suggested that improved consistency was needed, the program should start on time, the scheduled time of day for SKY Schools was critical, they were misinformed on the available support and proactive resolutions were needed:
“[Having kids around] was distracting to me too. I felt uncomfortable telling them 'you guys told me I could bring my children and then you would watch them.'
And that’s why I didn’t want to bring my son because I feel it would be more of a distraction. I understand that the childcare is needed and makes sense but maybe if they had a way to find a better block out the window or try and just soundproof the situation.”
Facilitator Influence
Participants believed they would have further benefited from a stricter discipline-based approach. While they identified that participants should be accountable for their own behaviour, they also perceived facilitators were lax in applying discipline.
However, they did also express that the facilitators were largely accessible and supportive:
“It's [SKY Schools] something different as I was already trying to learn meditation with many different points of view. Whereas I was struggling a lot before or trying to learn stuff from the video and trying to learn stuff from just books and videos, this one separate thing. Then being able to just learn personally from somebody... an expert and that I think is the biggest difference for me...That's really what kept me coming back. Cause I mean, I can sit at home and wonder the entire time during this right, I can’t ask questions or anything like that, just being able to be right there. I think that I was already looking for meditation stuff before the course was offered. So it's almost [auspicious] at the same time. And just to be able to have the opportunity to do a free, you know, to some even certain extent more structured, you know. Your classmates, not just the yoga, it's not just the meditation. It was kind of like a little bit more of a different take on that. So I did enjoy that aspect a lot.”
Structural Suggestions
Participants provided feedback on further enhancements for the program including suggestions for improvements to the structure, session duration and reducing disruptive transitions between portions of the SKY Schools program:
“If you had more of not such a big span between [SKY Schools sessions]. If you do like twice a week, because when you do it once a week, there's just that huge time [between sessions]. … But the one thing I found was that with that huge gap in between each session [before the next] follow-up, it was almost too big of one because people would forget. And especially that it was on Monday... Just coming out of the weekend...That's the thing that would really throw people off... Tuesday, Thursday, something during the week, like Monday, you're recovering...But if you did it twice a week, rather than only once a week, I think it would be good. Cause at the beginning, it was consistent. Everybody showed up and I was just like, Oh man, we got quite a group here. It felt more comfortable. I would say either twice a week or try and not do it on the Monday.”
Suggested Enhancements
Participants indicated that they would have enjoyed the SKY Schools program more with some environmental improvements, such as a warmer room. Participants suggested that the location of the program was very important and provided feedback on adverse events including discomfort related to the environment. They identified the value of extrinsic benefits to study participation including study compensation:
“Eventually we started doing the Tims (reference to Tim Hortons, a large chain of Canadian café) cards. I found that to be better. For transportation, I just walk so... going [with] the gift cards to the restaurant there wasn’t a lot of things you can get for that...And the Tims card, like you had the option of getting what you wanted umm as well so if somebody didn’t like a particular food item or couldn’t eat a particular food item, you wouldn’t have to worry about that.”