Evaluation of teachers’ use of research evidence for primary school students’ literacy outcomes: A randomised controlled trial in China

BackgroundThere are few Australian studies showing how research evidence is used to inform the development of public health policy. International research has shown that compensation for injury rehabilitation can have negative impacts on health outcomes. This study examined transport injury compensation policy in the Australian state of Victoria to: determine type and purpose of reference to information sources; and to identify the extent of reference to academic research evidence in transport related injury rehabilitation compensation policy.MethodsQuantitative content analysis of injury rehabilitation compensation policies (N = 128) from the Victorian state government transport accident compensation authority.ResultsThe most commonly referenced types of information were Internal Policy (median = 6 references per policy), Clinical/Medical (2.5), and Internal Legislation (1). Academic Research Evidence was the least often referenced source of information. The main purpose of reference to information was to support injury treatment and rehabilitation compensation claims decision-making.ConclusionsTransport injury compensation policy development is complex; with multiple sources of information cited including legislation, internal policy, external policy and clinical/medical evidence. There is limited use of academic research evidence in Victorian state government injury treatment and rehabilitation compensation policies. Decisions regarding compensation for injury treatment and rehabilitation services could benefit from greater use of academic research evidence. This study is one of the first to examine the use of research evidence in existing Australian public health policy decision-making using rigorous quantitative methods. It provides a practical example of how use of research evidence in public health policy can be objectively measured.

The use of health research evidence is essential for informed decision-making and effective health planning. Despite its importance, there is limited understanding of the determinants for the use of such evidence in planning processes, particularly in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) like Tanzania. This study aims to investigate the proportion and determinants that affect the use of health research evidence in health planning in Tanzania. This quantitative study employed a cross-sectional design. Data on health research evidence and the factors influencing its use were collected using a structured questionnaire from 422 healthcare workers involved in planning within 9 regions of Tanzania from October to December 2023. The association between categorical variables was assessed using a chi-square test, while regression analysis was conducted to identify determinants, both at a 95% confidence level. The study revealed that 270 (66.2%) of health planning team members strongly agreed that they use health research evidence during planning. Several key determinants were significantly associated with the level of research evidence utilization. These included limited dissemination of research findings (74.5%), inadequate human and non-human resources (70.0%), and insufficient knowledge and training in research (63.7%). A multivariate regression analysis confirmed significant associations between the determinants and the use of research evidence (p<0.05). Descriptive statistics revealed that over 70% of respondents identified the presence of research coordinators, partnerships with universities, availability of research budgets, and internet access as important factors in their research. Inferential analysis indicated that these factors were statistically significantly associated with the use of health research evidence. In addition, more than half of the participants stated motivational factors, such as the presence of continuous quality improvement initiatives, the availability of short- and long-term training programs, on-the-job training opportunities, and incentives like extra duty allowances, as contributors to the enhanced use of research evidence. Bottom of Form. The study found that planning team members used health research evidence in planning, but several determinants, such as lack of dissemination, resource shortages, and inadequate training, persisted. Interventions should focus on improving dissemination, resources, and training. Future research should explore strategies for enhancing these interventions.

BackgroundPrevious research has reported that public-academic partnerships (PAPs) can effectively promote PAP leaders’ use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes. However, the existing literature has not yet clarified whether and how PAP leaders’ use of research evidence evolves along the PAP life cycle and whether PAP partners’ concordant perceptions of usefulness of their PAP has an impact on PAP leaders’ use of research evidence. Developing a conceptual framework that recognizes the PAP life cycle and empirically identifying contexts and mechanisms of PAPs that promote PAP leaders’ use of research evidence from the PAP life cycle perspective are imperative to guide researchers and policymakers to successfully lead PAPs and foster policymakers’ use of research evidence for improving youth outcomes.ObjectiveUtilizing an integrated framework of organizational life cycle perspective, a social partnership perspective, and a realist evaluation, this study examines the extent to which PAP development and PAP leaders’ use of research evidence can be characterized into life cycle stages and identifies PAP contexts and mechanisms that explain the progress of PAPs and PAP leaders’ use of research evidence through life cycle stages. MethodsRecruiting PAPs across the United States that aim to improve mental health and promote well-being of youth aged 12-25 years, the study conducts a document analysis and an online survey of PAPs to inform policymakers and academic researchers on the contexts and mechanisms to increase PAP sustainability and promote policymakers’ use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes. ResultsFifty-three PAPs that meet the recruitment criteria have been identified, and document review of PAPs and participant recruitment for the online survey of PAP experience have been conducted. ConclusionsThis paper will help policymakers and researchers gain a deeper knowledge of the contexts and mechanisms for each PAP life cycle stage in order to optimize PAP leaders’ use of research evidence in achieving positive youth outcomes.International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/14382

Speech and language therapists are encouraged to be evidence-based practitioners in contemporary clinical practice. This apparently signifies their commitment to 'good' practice. An examination of evidence-based practice (EBP) and its adoption in clinical practice is therefore warranted. This paper aims to explore EBP, specifically research evidence, as related to the field of speech and language therapy (SLT), using profession specific and cross-disciplinary examples. It asks the reader to consider whether research evidence contributes positively to SLT practice, or adds to the demands placed on clinicians? A review of the literature on the nature and use of research evidence in the field of speech and language therapy and related health professions was undertaken using multiple databases (Cochrane, Medline, Cinahal, BioMed, Trip, Dare) and the following up of references provided within texts and articles. This paper asks the reader to consider the topic from the perspective of the nature of research produced, the barriers perceived, and the use of research evidence by SLTs and the allied health professions. The uptake of research evidence in the profession is similar to other health professions and continues to be problematic. There are multiple reasons why this is so, originating from both the nature and use of research. Research evidence is one of the pillars of EBP. Despite problems with the nature and use of such evidence, it has a positive contribution to make to clinical practice as it provides for a scientific touchstone. However, it may be that the speech and language therapist and not the research evidence is the primary pivot upon which scientific practice is based.

In sectors outside of medicine and health care, the promotion and implementation of rigorous research-based evidence in policy making in three, affluent, English-speaking Western countries, namely the U.S., the U.K., and Australia, is futile. There are two components to Evidence-Based Policy Making: the evidence must be used in policy making, and the policy must lead to better outcomes. First, in the U.S. and the U.K., the civil servants are required to use evidence in policy making. Thus, the promotion of evidence use may be a non-issue. Second, there is little empirical support for the effectiveness of evidence use in policy making. Third, politics is an integral part of policy making. Fourth, the policy making process may not be conducive to the use of rigorous research evidence. Fifth, the use of rigorous research evidence may not be appropriate for wicked social problems. Sixth, the use of research evidence is indirect via enlightenment.

BackgroundPartnerships between academic institutions and public care agencies (public–academic partnerships [PAPs]) can promote effective policy making and care delivery. Public care agencies are often engaged in PAPs for evidence-informed policy making in health care. Previous research has reported essential partnership contextual factors and mechanisms that promote evidence-based policy making and practice in health care. However, the studies have not yet informed whether public care agency leaders’ and academic researchers’ perceptions of partnership purpose formulation and coalition building evolve through the PAP life cycle and whether public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence differs through life cycle stages.ObjectiveThis exploratory study aims to focus on PAPs designed to improve youth mental health and well-being outcomes. This study also aims to identify public care agency leaders’ and academic researchers’ perceptions of PAP purpose formulation (structure, goals, primary function, and agenda-setting process) and coalition building (mutual benefits, trust, convener’s role, member role clarity, and conflict management) by PAP life cycle stage and examine whether public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence differs according to the perception of PAP purpose formulation and coalition building through the PAP life cycle.MethodsA web-based survey of PAP experience was conducted by recruiting academic researchers (n=40) and public care agency leaders (n=26) who were engaged in PAPs for the past 10 years. Public care agency leaders additionally participated in the survey of the Structured Interview for Evidence Use scale (n=48).ResultsMost public care agency leaders and academic researchers in PAPs formed, matured, and sustained perceived their PAP as having purpose formulation context well aligned with their organizational purpose formulation context, pursuing mutual benefits, having leadership representation and role clarity, having a higher level of trust, and knowing how to handle conflicts. Most PAPs across all life cycle stages crystallized another issue to focus, but not all PAPs with issue crystallization had purpose reformulation. Public care agency leaders who trusted academic researchers in their PAP had greater use of research evidence. Public care agency leaders in PAPs that had gone through new issue crystallization also showed greater use of research evidence compared with those that had not.ConclusionsTo promote public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence, focusing on developing trusting partnerships and continuously crystallizing PAP issues are important.International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)RR2-10.2196/14382

BACKGROUND: Knowledge Translation Platform (KTP) in partnerships between policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers was established in order to enhance evidence-informed policymaking on physical activity. The article aims to give answers to specific questions, such as what were the main knowledge translation tools to improve access to research evidence in physical activity policy in Finland; which factors facilitated the improvements in use of research evidence, and what kind of procedures were implemented to improve the use of research evidence in policy making.METHODS: The study triangulated qualitative data from documents, reviews and observations of meetings between 2012 and 2013. Purposive sampling of meeting documents was used and data was analysed using a thematic content analysis of documents.RESULTS: KTP contributed to an increased awareness of the importance of the use of research evidence in physical activity policymaking, and strengthened relationships between policymakers, stakeholders and researchers. Support from policymakers and professionals as well as a window of opportunity facilitated KTP activities. Based on the KTP experience, institutionalization within the government could help to keep the use of research evidence high on the agenda.CONCLUSIONS: The case study provided unique insights into what counts for developing use of research evidence in policymaking. The expectations of the public policy were to give a larger role to evidence-informed policymaking, but expectations conflicted between the interests of various stakeholders. The establishment of KTP was a promising development in supporting the use of research evidence in physical activity policymaking. Real-time lesson drawing from the experiences of KTP can support improvements in the functioning of KTP in the short term, while making the case for sustaining their work in the long term.

The use of research evidence in policymaking provides policymakers with a sound basis for policy decisions and actions. While the use of research evidence is on the rise, its evidence remains largely under‐reported especially from social sciences and developing world context. This may perpetuate the prevailing myth that policymakers do not use research evidence in policy deliberations and, thus, discourage researchers, funders, and policymakers from making greater investment in producing, disseminating, and using research evidence. Using the intersection of Weiss’ typology of research use and a best‐evidence synthesis approach, this paper reviews and reports evidence on the use of research evidence in the policy domain from four national level studies undertaken in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Conceptual and instrumental uses of research evidence are evident through a demand for research evidence, research‐based policy products, and citations of research in policy documents. The paper broadens our understanding on the use of research evidence from developing countries context and social science research, and informs different funders, researchers, and policymakers about the potential utility of research they respectively fund and/or undertake.

BackgroundEvidence-informed health policymaking is a goal of equitable and effective health systems but occurs infrequently in reality. Past research points to the facilitating role of interpersonal relationships between policy-makers and researchers, imploring the adoption of a social network lens. This study aims to identify network-level factors associated with the exchange and use of research evidence in policymaking.MethodsData on social networks and research use were collected from seventy policy actors across three health policy cases in Burkina Faso (child health, malaria, and HIV). Networks were graphed for actors’ interactions, their provision of, and request for research evidence. Exponential random graph models estimated the probability of evidence provision and request between actors, controlling for network- and individual-level covariates. Logistic regression models estimated actors’ use of research evidence to inform policy.ResultsNetwork structure explained more than half of the evidence exchanges (ties) observed in these networks. Across all cases, a pair of actors was more likely to form a provision tie if they already had a request tie between them and visa versa (θ = 6.16, p < 0.05; θ = 2.87, p < 0.05; θ = 2.31, p < 0.05). The child health network displayed clustering tendencies, meaning that actors were more likely to form ties if they shared an acquaintance (θ = 2.36, p < 0.05). Actors’ use of research evidence was positively associated with their centrality (i.e., connectedness).ConclusionsThe exchange and use of research evidence in policymaking can be partly explained by the structure of actors’ networks of relationships. Efforts to support knowledge translation and evidence-informed policymaking should consider network factors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0126-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The World Health Organization has recognized need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by best available research evidence. Developing recommendations make little sense if they are not used. Thus, effective strategies to promote appropriate use of recommendations by decision-makers are important.1 Discussions internationally have also been focusing on how to develop mechanisms to support use of research evidence in developing clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessments, and health policy.2 Decision makers on health issues have to address a series of difficult questions when choosing programs and policies: What is likely disease burden that might be prevented or reduced? Which programs and policy options are likely to result in meaningful improvements in health? How will benefits be distributed among affected groups? Which potential solutions are appropriate and feasible for a specific situation? In implementing decisions they need to consider issues like political and technical feasibility, fit between strategy and community context, and cost and cost- effectiveness?3 It needs to be understood that health researchers and have different perspectives towards resources and time frames regarding availability of research findings. They operate under different settings, each with its own professionalism and limitations. It is noted that policy-makers rarely convey clear messages about policy challenges they face in their specific context to allow for timely and appropriate research agendas. Researchers on other hand often produce scientific evidence which is not always tailor-made for application in different contexts and is usually characterized by complexity and grades of uncertainty.4 Researchers cannot in advance predict utilization of their evidence in terms of interpretation and usefulness for decision makers, but they can influence policy outcomes if they engage with policy community as a stakeholder or via other stakeholders.5 Thus, according to van Kammen et al initiatives are needed to facilitate interaction between researchers and to foster greater use of research findings and evidence in policy-making and to narrow ‘know-do gap’. Knowledge brokering is designed to close know-do gap. It differs from other strategies, such as ‘researcher-push’ or ‘policy-maker-pull’. It starts with recognition that creating knowledge and formulating policy are two different processes. The focus of knowledge brokering is not on transferring of results of research, but on organizing interactive process between producers (researchers) and users (policy-makers) of knowledge so that they can co-produce feasible and research-informed policy options. Knowledge brokering is a two-way process that aims to; 1) encourage to be more responsive to research findings, and 2) stimulate researchers to conduct policy-relevant research and translate their findings to be meaningful to policy-makers.6 There is growing literature on research synthesis techniques that are focusing on policy makers’ unique concerns. They are different than established methods of summative systematic reviews to answer well-defined clinical effectiveness questions. Admittedly, as Lomas notes the task is more challenging- demanding and often impatient clients, questions that need ongoing negotiation and depend as much on context as on content, literatures with unclear boundaries, multiple relevant methodologies and few generally agreed upon standards for quality. There are, however, those who are rising to these challenges and trying to develop methods for interpretive synthesis for benefit of policy makers. These methods have potential to get social science and health services research contributing to healthcare management and policy as effectively as Cochrane Collaboration brings epidemiologic and economic research to provision of clinical care.7 A recently published study to understand perspectives and attitudes of towards use and impact of research in health sector in low- and middle-income countries used data from 83 semi-structured, in-depth interviews conducted with purposively selected at national level in Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Malawi, Oman and Singapore.8 Policy-makers interviewed for this study were unequivocal in their support for health research and high value they attribute to it. However, they stated that there were structural and informal barriers to research contributing to policy processes, to contribution research makes to knowledge generally and to use of research in health decision-making specifically. Major findings regarding barriers to evidence-based policy-making included poor communication and dissemination, lack of technical capacity in policy processes, as well as influence in political context. Policy-makers had a variable understanding of economic analysis, equity and burden of disease measures, and were vague in terms of their use in national decisions. Policy-maker recommendations regarding strategies for facilitating uptake of research into policy included improving technical capacity of policy-makers, better packaging of research results, use of social networks, and establishment of fora and clearinghouse functions to help assist in evidence-based policy-making.8 The researchers hope to see research evidence become action in form of a new policy, program or decision but not always are these hopes realized. But they need to realize that research evidence is only one of factors in decision-making. There are other issues to be tackled like governmental vision, political challenges, resource constraints, different lobbyists, traditional values, beliefs etc. Martens and Roos make it explicit that policy makers pay more attention to research findings if they have invested their own funds and time.9 They urge researchers to take efforts in building relationships with policy makers, because there are inevitable tensions between what two parties need and do. Research findings must make sense to decision makers and so researchers must be able to communicate same in simple terms by means of short policy briefs. Hope this article helps to stimulate researchers to uninhibitedly share their perspectives with policy makers and vice versa. This would serve to further strengthen existing relationship between researchers and policy makers to achieve desired health outcomes in Oman and similar countries in region.

BackgroundIn Nigeria, interest in the evidence-to-policy process is gaining momentum among policymakers involved in maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH). However, numerous gaps exist among policymakers on use of research evidence in policymaking. The objective of this study was to assess the perception of MNCH policymakers regarding their needs and the barriers and facilitators to use of research evidence in policymaking in Nigeria.MethodsThe study design was a cross-sectional assessment of perceptions undertaken during a national MNCH stakeholders’ engagement event convened in Abuja, Nigeria. A questionnaire designed to assess participants’ perceptions was administered in person. Group consultations were also held, which centred on policymakers’ evidence-to-policy needs to enhance the use of evidence in policymaking.ResultsA total of 40 participants completed the questionnaire and participated in the group consultations. According to the respondents, the main barriers to evidence use in MNCH policymaking include inadequate capacity of organisations to conduct policy-relevant research; inadequate budgetary allocation for policy-relevant research; policymakers’ indifference to research evidence; poor dissemination of research evidence to policymakers; and lack of interaction fora between researchers and policymakers. The main facilitators of use of research evidence for policymaking in MNCH, as perceived by the respondents, include capacity building for policymakers on use of research evidence in policy formulation; appropriate dissemination of research findings to relevant stakeholders; involving policymakers in research design and execution; and allowing policymakers’ needs to drive research. The main ways identified to promote policymakers’ use of evidence for policymaking included improving policymakers’ skills in information and communication technology, data use, analysis, communication and advocacy.ConclusionTo improve the use of research evidence in policymaking in Nigeria, there is a need to establish mechanisms that will facilitate the movement from evidence to policy and address the needs identified by policymakers. It is also imperative to improve organisational initiatives that facilitate use of research evidence for policymaking.

Little is known about the extent to which research evidence informs the development of recommendations by international organizations. We identified specific World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank recommendations on five topics (contracting, healthcare financing, health human resources, tuberculosis control and tobacco control), catalogued the related systematic reviews and assessed the recommendations to determine their consistency with the systematic reviews that were available at the time of their formulation. Only two of the eight publications examined were found to cite systematic reviews, and only five of 14 WHO and two of seven World Bank recommendations were consistent with both the direction and nature of effect claims from systematic reviews. Ten of 14 WHO and five of seven World Bank recommendations were consistent with the direction of effect claims only. WHO and the World Bank - working with donor agencies and national governments - can improve their use of (or at least, their reporting about their use of) research evidence. Decision-makers and clinicians should critically evaluate the quality and local applicability of recommendations from any source, including international organizations, prior to their implementation.

Background:Although public-academic partnerships (PAPs) to improve the health and well-being of vulnerable populations have proliferated in public care for youth, existing literature lacks information about whether PAPs lead to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence and promote youth mental health and well-being. Aims and objectives:The document analysis was conducted to understand PAP contexts and mechanisms leading to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence. This paper introduces US public mental health and child welfare systems, shares strategies of identifying PAPs, obtaining and conducting systematic document review of PAPs, and documents analysis findings. Methods:This project conducted document analysis of US PAPs aiming to improve mental health and promote well-being of youth aged 12–25 years. Findings:The 23 PAPs analysed had diverse partnership goals including implementation and dissemination of research/evaluation evidence, information sharing, and prioritising and streamlining research priorities. PAPs sustained longer than 10 years had more focused goals of programme and policy evaluations and professional training, while PAPs 10 years or newer were engaged in more diverse goals. The majority of PAPs used journal articles, presentations, and multimedia as dissemination strategies of findings. Fewer than half of the PAPs reported on use of PAP-generated evidence in subsequent decision making by public care agency leaders. Discussion and conclusions:Further research should examine which mechanisms link partnership contexts, PAP leaders’ research evidence use, and youth outcomes improvement. Future research should also examine PAPs by detailed stages of development and ask PAP leaders directly about their evidence use.

BackgroundThere is growing evidence that context mediates the effects of implementation interventions intended to increase healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is elusive. The purpose of this study was to advance conceptual clarity on context by developing the Implementation in Context Framework, a meta-framework of the context domains, attributes and features that can facilitate or hinder healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence and the effectiveness of implementation interventions in clinical practice.MethodsWe conducted a meta-synthesis of data from three interrelated studies: (1) a concept analysis of published literature on context (n = 70 studies), (2) a secondary analysis of healthcare professional interviews (n = 145) examining context across 11 unique studies and (3) a descriptive qualitative study comprised of interviews with heath system stakeholders (n = 39) in four countries to elicit their tacit knowledge on the attributes and features of context. A rigorous protocol was followed for the meta-synthesis, resulting in development of the Implementation in Context Framework. Following this meta-synthesis, the framework was further refined through feedback from experts in context and implementation science.ResultsIn the Implementation in Context Framework, context is conceptualized in three levels: micro (individual), meso (organizational), and macro (external). The three levels are composed of six contextual domains: (1) actors (micro), (2) organizational climate and structures (meso), (3) organizational social behaviour (meso), (4) organizational response to change (meso), (5) organizational processes (meso) and (6) external influences (macro). These six domains contain 22 core attributes of context and 108 features that illustrate these attributes.ConclusionsThe Implementation in Context Framework is the only meta-framework of context available to guide implementation efforts of healthcare professionals. It provides a comprehensive and critically needed understanding of the context domains, attributes and features relevant to healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. The Implementation in Context Framework can inform implementation intervention design and delivery to better interpret the effects of implementation interventions, and pragmatically guide implementation efforts that enhance evidence uptake and sustainability by healthcare professionals.

Background The use of research evidence produced by others is seen as central to the reflective practice of school teachers. There have been many recent UK initiatives aimed at improving access to research evidence, but there are still concerns about the lack of engagement by teachers. Previous research has looked at this issue from different perspectives, including the content and relevance of educational research, the relationships between researchers and teachers, accessibility and presentation of research and the culture of the school. The research presented here seeks to make a contribution to understanding the diffusion of research in the teaching profession by examining the issues from an information literacy perspective. Purpose This paper examines the use of research information by UK school teachers, placing an emphasis on their information literacy—i.e. teachers' strategies and confidence in their abilities to find, evaluate and use research information, which is defined as the published output of a planned piece of research. Sample Survey data were collected from 312 teachers and 78 head teachers from nursery, primary and secondary schools in Scotland, England and Wales. The sample included a wide range of teaching experience, ages, subject responsibilities, school locations and sizes, although there was a bias towards teachers who were motivated to use research evidence. Interviews were conducted with 28 teachers from primary, secondary, nursery and special education schools, and a further 15 teachers took part in group exercises. Interview and group exercise samples were more varied in their levels of research involvement. Design and methods A mixed methodology was used. The questionnaire survey sought background data on more general attitudes towards research, as well as data on information access and confidence in finding and using general and research information. This was supplemented by qualitative evidence on information strategies and experiences from scenario or vignette interviews. Group exercises in which teachers discussed their responses to specific examples of research information were useful in focusing on strategies for evaluating information. Results While survey respondents were, on balance, positively motivated towards the use of research evidence, their actual use of information from research was limited. They considered the most prominent barriers to their use of research information were associated with lack of time and lack of ready access to sources. This is likely to be a limiting factor in terms of the development of teacher confidence in finding, evaluating and using the kinds of information sources which are increasingly available to support their professional development. In fact survey evidence from the more research-motivated sample indicated that teachers were considerably less confident in finding and using research information than general information. Their confidence was slightly higher in finding research information (e.g. 67.1% and 60.9% were either confident or very confident in defining information needs and locating information respectively) compared to using research information (for example, 56.5% were either confident or very confident in organizing and synthesizing information). However, evidence from the more mixed interview and group exercise samples also revealed a range of concerns about lack of skills and knowledge needed to search and evaluate information effectively. Conclusions The findings suggest that information literacy may be a factor in limiting the use of research information, exacerbating the perceived challenges of lack of time and lack of ready access to information sources. From an information perspective, teachers' use of research evidence is likely to be enhanced by greater development of information literacy; more attention to local information dissemination strategies; and the development of an information culture and ethos within schools.