School restrictive smartphone policies may save a small amount of money by reducing staff costs

(Press-News.org) School restrictive smartphone policies may save a small amount of money for schools, primarily by reducing the amount of time staff spend on managing phone-related behaviours, but they make little difference to pupils’ quality of life or mental wellbeing, finds a health economic analysis, published in the online journal BMJ Mental Health.

 

By the age of 12, most children own a phone and use social media, with teens reportedly spending between 4 and 6 hours a day on their phones and 2–4 hours a day on social media, note the researchers. Spending a lot of time on smartphones and social media tends to be associated with poorer mental health, they add.

 

In the UK, an estimated 1 in 5 children between the ages of 11 and 16 probably has a mental health issue—mostly anxiety and depression—they point out.

 

Many countries have introduced restrictive smartphone policies for secondary schools, with the aim of improving pupils’ mental wellbeing and academic performance. But it’s not entirely clear how successful these policies have been, or whether they represent value for money, explain the researchers.

 

To find out, they carried out a cost–utility analysis as part of an observational study on school smartphone policies in England (SMART Schools), comparing schools with restrictive and permissive policies.

 

In schools with restrictive policies, phones weren’t allowed to be used during the school day for recreational purposes and had to be turned off and inside bags, or stored in lockers, or kept in a pouch, or handed into the school reception, or not allowed onto the premises.

 

In permissive schools, phones were allowed to be used at any time, or at certain times, such as during breaks or lunch, and/or in certain zones—-outside, for example.

 

Complete survey data were collected from 815 pupils, aged 12 to 15 (years 8-10) from 20 schools (13 restrictive; 7 permissive), 36 teachers, and 20 senior members of staff responsible for their school’s smartphone policy completed online questionnaires between November 2022 and November 2023. 

 

Outcomes were measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), a standard measure where one QALY equals one year of life lived in perfect health, and in MWALYs—the equivalent measure for good mental health and wellbeing.

 

The analysis revealed that the differences in pupils’ quality of life and mental wellbeing between restrictive and permissive schools were minimal.

 

But school staff spent a significant amount of time each week administering smartphone policies and managing phone-related behaviours, irrespective of policy type—equivalent to 3.1 full timers in restrictive schools and 3.3 full timers in permissive schools.

 

The researchers calculated that the cost per pupil for each school year (39 weeks) in restrictive schools was £94 less than in permissive schools, and would only be cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY---the threshold generally accepted as representing value for money.

 

This is an observational study, and as such, no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect. And the researchers acknowledge that they had no information on costs and outcomes before and after the implementation of a more restrictive phone policy.

 

Nevertheless, they highlight: “This study provides further evidence that there are unlikely to be differences in pupils’ mental health and wellbeing outcomes in adolescents attending schools with a restrictive or permissive smartphone policy.” 

 

They add: “Restrictive phone policies could offer small economic benefits to schools by reducing the amount of time school staff spend managing pupil phone-related behaviours.”

 

They conclude: “Overall, the findings highlight the need for development of current school phone policy and practices to reduce school staff time spent managing adolescent phone use, potentially freeing up resources for more beneficial educational and wellbeing activities.”

 

And they point out: “On smartphones, we currently lack an evidence-based best practice approach to addressing phone and social media use by adolescents. Therefore, all new approaches need to be accompanied by robust evaluation.”

 

END