^■ Introduction

Substance use among young people has both short- and long-term consequences, impacting ado­lescents physically, socially and emotionally [1-3]. The family has been recognised as an important influence on young people’s behaviour, presenting both risks of exposure to, and protection against substance use and its associated risk of health and social harms [4-7]. Accounts of existing programmes have stressed that parental¹ involvement is a key element in the prevention of adolescent substance use and should be a component of a holistic approach to implementing drug education programmes [8, 9]. However, comparatively little attention has been paid to understanding the concept of parental engagement, what it entails, and how it can be achieved [10, 11]. What is more, studies have found a mismatch between parents and school staff in their understanding of what constitutes engagement [12, 13].

Goodall and Montgomery [14], in an exami­nation of the literature on parental involvement in school education, drew a distinction between parental involvement and parental engagement, noting that “Involvement may be defined as the act of taking part in an activity or event, or situation (…) while engagement may be defined as the feeling of being involved in a particular activity” or “a formal arrangement to meet someone or to do something, especially as part of your public duties” [14: 399-400].

An example of involvement is interaction during a parents’ evening where there is a one-way flow of information and where there is little room to engage parents in dialogue. At the engagement level, parents’ agency is recognised and supported, allowing learning to take place in homes, recreational settings and in everyday contexts. Goodall and Mongomery propose a continuum model that moves involvement beyond assisting teachers towards engagement – a more meaningful, colla­borative process. The continuum model, thus shifts the relationship schools have with parents and focuses on fostering greater parental commitment, sense of ownership and partnership with the school. The evidence suggests that the most significant bene­fits for children result from parental engagement with learning rather than mere involvement with school processes. The authors acknowledge the limitations of the model, recognising that not all parents are equal in their needs, and that parents face dif­ferent levels and types of barriers to enga­gement.

The barriers to parental involvement and engagement are well documented. They include practical considerations like a lack of time, shift work or the need to travel to the school; also cultural and social barriers like language skills or parents feeling out of place or excluded or personal experiences like their own negative memories of schooling [10, 11, 15]. These parents may struggle to move from basic involvement to authentic dia­logue even when opportunities for meaningful engagement are offered.

Current studies also provide some findings on the kinds of parental involvement (and, less frequently, engagement) that have been included as part of school-based drug education or as part of more holistic programmes where components have included schools and parents [16, 17]. For example, Çelik and Ulusoy [17], in a systematic review of school-based drug interventions, identify that programmes combining joint parent–student workshops, home assignments and parent–child contracts or pledges that foster stronger parent–child communication, resistance to peer pressure, improved relationship satisfaction and reduced substance use. Tools like pledges, formal contracts, and designated workshops give parents explicit responsibilities, reinforcing consistent messaging across home and school. These findings align with evidence from the broader behavioural health lite­rature showing that interventions including parental participation are more effective at enhancing outcomes related to adolescents’ externalising behaviour [18]. However, the findings are drawn from studies conducted in different cultural, social and geographical contexts and with young people using a range of different substances.

This paper reports the findings on parental engagement drawn from an evaluation of a multi-component school-based drug education programme in England. Responding to policy concern regarding young people’s substance use and the continuing lack of good evidence on prevention, the study was funded as part of a national programme of work to reduce demand for illicit substances among young people.

The focus of this paper is on the findings from the evaluation of the parent-workshop component. The paper aims to stimulate discussion on the factors influencing the nature and quality of parental engagement. It examines the challenges of engaging parents, carers or guardians in drug education, and illustrates the issues from the perspectives of parents, students and teachers participating in programme evaluation.

^■ Material and methods

The drug education programme

The Daniel Spargo-Mabbs Foundation (DSMF) programme [19] was developed in line with national and international evidence for what works in drug education [20, 21]. It is a multi-component programme consisting of 6 components: teacher training, a play or video of the play performance (“I Love You, Mum – I Promise I Won’t Die”), with a linked post play/video reflective session, a workshop for students and teachers delivered by DSMF drug educators, lesson materials produced for teachers by DSMF, and a parent/carer workshop delivered by DSMF. The resources are designed so that each component complements, reinforces and strengthens the others as part of a holistic programme incorporating the delivery of knowledge, facilitating skills acquisition, fostering communication between parents/carers, students and relevant adults and securing other stakeholders’ and students’ engagement.

Study design

Examination of parental involvement in the DSMF workshop and in school-based drug education was part of a one-year feasibility study to evaluate the DSMF drug education programme. The evaluation adopted a realist approach [22] to consider what worked for whom and in which contexts. The programme was delivered to students age 13-15 in eleven English schools. The eleven schools were purposively sampled to reflect different geographical locations (large metropolitan, urban, rural and seaside) and school types (academy, comprehensive, faith, independent and pupil referral), and to achieve a mix in school size, socio-economic composition (including percentage of students eligible for free school meals as a measure of socio-economic status/poverty), ethnicity, proportion of students with English as a second language, special educational needs provision and educational attainment.

This paper uses data from a survey of parents attending the DSMF parent workshop and also from focus group discussions with students and teachers following the programme delivery.

Parent recruitment, workshop content,
and post-workshop survey

During programme delivery, all parents of 13-to-15-year-old students in the participating schools were informed about the workshop and invited to participate. Teachers issued the invitation to parents using information materials provided by DSMF. The workshops, which lasted for one hour (with additional time for questions if this was needed), were delivered by DSMF drug educators and held online to facilitate access. Core elements included in the workshops covered the current context for young people in relation to alcohol and other drugs, the effects and risks of the most commonly used substances, how to have effective conversations at home, practical strategies to support young people to manage risk more safely, how to recognise and respond to concerns about drug use, and where to go for more information and support. Parent engagement was incorporated into the workshop planning and delivery as far as possible. Parents who registered for the workshops were sent a pre-delivery survey to find out if they had any particular requests regarding the workshop content or questions they would like addressed during the workshop. Delivery of the workshops included interactive elements to encourage parti­cipation like use of the chat function for ideas and responses to questions and polls.

After the workshop, participants were sent an evaluation survey from the Middlesex evalua­tion team. This consisted of 15 structured questions (strongly agree, agree, neither agree/disagree, disagree, strongly disagree) and 6 open ended questions. The online survey was accompanied by an explanatory letter and a statement of informed consent. Parent responses to the survey questions are shown below (see Table III, page 18). The six open questions were: 1) “If there are any aspects of drug use and/or drug-related harms that you would like to know more about, please comment here. 2) Please comment on the information you received on young people’s exposure to drugs and let us know if there were any issues which were not covered. 3) What did you find most useful about the workshop? 4) What did you find least useful? 5) If you could change anything about the workshop, what would that be and how would you change it? 6) Is there anything else you would like to add in relation to the DSMF workshop or support for parents more generally?”.

Response to workshop participation and the parent survey

Table I shows the response to participation in the workshops and to returning the evaluation survey. Only 2 of the 28 surveys were from fathers with 26 noting their relationship as “mother”. No one was noted as a carer/guardian, although some carers/guardians may have attended the workshop.

Focus groups with teachers

After delivery of the DSMF programme, focus groups with teachers were conducted in person in 8 of the 11 participating schools and interviews with the lead delivery teacher in 3 schools (due to difficulties with conducting focus groups). Focus groups and interviews were conducted by two researchers. A total of 47 teachers participated in either a focus group or interview, lasting approximately 30-40 minutes. Of the 44 teachers participating in focus groups, 30 were female and 14 were male; the three teachers interviewed were female. All teachers had been involved in delivering aspects of the programme. The focus group schedule was developed by the research team drawing on insights from prior pre-programme delivery interviews and focus groups and on findings from existing literature. The discussions explored teacher perceptions of the DSMF programme and included one question on their views on parent participation. The question asked: “Did you get any feedback from parents/carers about the programme or the parent workshop?” and led to open discussion where the concept of parental engagement and reasons for non-engagement arose spontaneously.

Student focus groups

Post-delivery focus groups were conducted in person by two researchers with students in 10 schools and included a total of 103 students (Table II). Student characteristics were not collected but teachers had been asked to consider diversity when composing the groups to take account of ethnicity, socio-economic background, students with special educational needs, and students who had experienced exclusion. The researcher notes (and information given by the teachers about the participants) indicated that this had been achieved. Parental permission was obtained prior to the focus groups and teachers were present during the discussions which lasted around one hour. The focus group schedule was developed by the research team drawing on insights from prior pre-programme delivery interviews and focus groups and on findings from existing lite­rature. Students were asked to reflect on their experience of each of the components of the DSMF programme. Their views on parent engagement in drug education emerged in response to general questions like “Who do you think is the best person to learn from about drugs?” or “Who do you think would be the best person to speak to (about drugs)?” They were also asked one question speci­fic to parent engagement in drug education “Have you got any ideas how we can get your parents or carers more involved in learning about drugs and involved with drug education?”

Analysis

All focus group discussions (and the three teacher interviews) were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Template analysis was conducted following the approach outlined by King [23] and Brooks et al. [24]. For each data set (teachers, students, parents – open ended questions), an initial coding template was developed following familiarisation with a subset of transcripts and informed by the study objectives, topic guides and issues identified in the existing literature. The approach combined deductive and inductive coding to allow for inclusion of emerging issues. The templates were refined through iterative coding and team discussion as analysis progressed. Once all trans­cripts had been coded, themes were reviewed and refined across each of the datasets. One of the themes emerging, mainly from the inductive coding, across the datasets was perceptions of the role of parents and their involvement in drug education. Coding of parent surveys, teacher focus groups and student focus groups was undertaken by three researchers from the team and all team members participated in discussion on coding and theme development.

Ethical approval for the evaluation was granted by the Psychology Ethics Committee at Middlesex University (Reference 29431).

^■ Results

Parents’ responses to the survey evaluation of the parent workshop component are reported first of all. As noted above, around half (55%) of those who registered for the workshop actually attended, and very few (35%) returned a usable evaluation form. Responses to the evaluation survey indicate that the content and delivery of the workshop were relevant and useful for those who attended but that overall, there was lack of engagement with this component of the DSMF programme. Discussion in the teacher focus groups sheds some light on the possible reasons for disengagement and that is reported next. This is followed by insights from the student focus groups which highlight the complexity of parent–student relationships regarding the involvement of parents in drug education and drug discussions, and which has implications for the content and delivery of resources for parents. The final section brings together suggestions from students and teachers regarding how parental engagement in drug education might be improved.

Parents’ responses

As Table I above shows, the response to the parent survey was low with only 28 usable responses returned. However, those who responded were overall positive about the workshop which was held online (Table III).

Comments in the open questions described the workshop as “very informative” and “great.” The workshop presenters were described as “wonderful speakers” and participants appreciated the expertise of professional training which reinforced credibility and enhanced engagement with the webinar. Overall, participants valued the workshop for its ability to educate and update knowledge, ensuring that parents were aware of both current trends and long-standing issues related to youth drug use. The combination of information and real-life examples appeared to strengthen understanding, giving parents confidence to discuss these topics with their children and make informed decisions about prevention. Parents’ comments to the open questions fell into two broad categories: what they felt was most useful and what they felt could be improved.

Most useful aspects of the workshop. The use of statistical evidence on the prevalence of drug use was regarded by parents as a particularly valuable element of the workshop. Participants highlighted how the national, official statistics challenged common misconceptions about adolescents’ drug use. For example, one parent noted:

The statistics regarding different ages and drug use. The finding that teenagers think their peers are doing drugs but in fact most aren’t. (S2/P3)

Parents valued coverage of both legal and illicit substances, as one parent remarked:

Including alcohol, nicotine and more widely available drugs because I think that as soon as drugs are mentioned people think of hard drugs and these are as damaging. (C6/P3)

Another noted rising concerns over vaping and parents were keen to have information on the availability and use of “new” drugs:

Vaping is the number one concern for young people. (L1/P2)

Most respondents felt that the practical strategies and advice received during the workshop were particularly useful. They valued actionable strategies, such as the use of a secret code that could be sent to a parent or trusted adult, highlighting it as particularly useful for risk management.

My son and I have agreed our little rouse to help get him out of a situation without losing face, in case he ever needs it. (S1/1)

Finding ways to foster dialogue with their children was also seen as a useful strategy:

Making sure you keep an open dialogue, so they feel comfortable talking to you about things. I was surprised to see that most kids would talk to their parents, which is great! (S2/P8)

Limits of the workshop content. Some parents recognised the limits of what could be covered within an hour. As one explained:

There is a lot out there – so can’t all be covered in an hour session – but they did recommend where we could find out more info – which is helpful. (S1/2)

Rather than criticism, there were suggestions for how the sessions might be improved.

Some parents wanted greater clarity on the effects of different types of drugs and others asked for more in-depth information:

I felt it was just an introductory workshop so it would be good to receive more and deeper explanation about all the things covered. (S3/11)

The importance of the local context on student exposure to drugs was noted and it was suggested that local information and examples should be included more prominently. Some parents mentioned that while the information provided was useful, it could be strengthened with more concrete examples of how young people are exposed to drugs, particularly through online platforms like Snapchat. Including such examples would make the content more reliable and actionable.

Teachers’ perceptions

Teachers were asked if they had any feedback from parents about the parent workshop. Most teachers had nothing to report although at one school in particular, teachers reported there had been positive feedback from parents who attended the workshop. As one teacher commented:

The parents really loved it. They were quite horrified, I think, from just the amount of information. But the feedback that they gave was that they would love to have more things like this. It’s really improved their knowledge, improved their understanding of how to talk to their children about drugs and being much more open about that conversation – so it was very well received. (L1,T3)

For the most part, teachers’ comments on parental engagement centred on suggestions for why it was difficult for parents to become involved. Disengagement was a general issue, rather than just related to drugs education:

It’s the same kids whose parents come every time to parent’s evening (…) they’re very engaged with the school, very supportive of the school. It’s getting that section of parents who are maybe quite disengaged. (C3,T1)

It was seen to be due to numerous factors including practical issues such as finding a suitable time, caring responsibilities for younger children and parents working in the evenings. Interest in the topic and believing it was relevant to their children was also important:

If you’re trying to get them to something that they don’t have an interest in, it’s really hard. If (…) they think they know everything or it’s never going to happen to their kid. (C6,T4)

(Regarding drug education specifically), I think it’s almost a denial. It’s not going to happen to me (…) it’s not going to happen to my son or daughter. (C2,T2)

One teacher pointed out that parents often need to be educated about having difficult conversations with their children as they don’t necessarily know how to do this:

Rather than having a conversation to say, why are you doing this? What are you doing this for? (C5,T1)

For some parents, drugs education might not seem like a high priority when they are struggling with other issues and priorities in their children’s lives. Some groups of parents may struggle to attend events at the school, as the teachers at one school reflected:

I’m going to generalise massively and say that those parents are probably from disadvantaged backgrounds (…) obviously drugs can be important. But from their point of view, I think the most important thing is just making sure there’s money coming in. (S1, T4)

Another teacher mentioned the importance of being able to relate to the demographic background of the main characters in the play/video. (The main character in the play/video is a young man from a middle-class family who died from an accidental overdose of ecstasy):

If you look at the demographic of the person
(…) He was not your mainstream demographic. Because I’m not sure that if I’m a parent from perhaps a disadvantaged background that I’m necessarily going to connect with this. (S1,T5)

However, this view was rejected by T4 who argued that the story breaks the stereotype of who might get involved in drugs:

But I think that the reason why this is so hard hitting is because of the demographic it does hit which is breaking the stereotype of someone who is from a disadvantaged background. It’s not that person. It’s someone from a middle-class background. (S1,T4)

A different reason for disengagement was raised by a teacher in a pupil referral unit, who noted that most of their students were in foster care and many parents have had poor experiences of education themselves, so they are often reluctant to engage with teachers and the school:

The pupils that come here have been failed in school; so the relationship between the families and the education is poor (…) If we have parents’ evenings and if we get a few in, we’re over the moon. (C4,T2)

For these multiple reasons, schools had to work hard to build confidence and trust with parents to show that they are there for all-round support, not just in terms of academic education:

We’re working sometimes with parents who didn’t have a great experience of education (…) so it is about building confidence and what we’re offering here is supporting everything in their child’s life.
Not just in school, but in the community (…).
We need to let them know that there are people in the community that are doing what they can to keep them safe providing their education. (C1,T1)

Students’ perceptions

The findings from the student focus groups identified consistent patterns in how students perceived the role of parents in school-based drug education. Students commented on parental knowledge, communication, influence and preferred modes of engagement with parents about drug use. Students offered similar reasons to teachers as to why parents may not engage with drug education, noting in particular busy schedules and lack of time. However, in general, students felt that it was a good idea to engage parents in drug education. Two main themes emerged, perceptions on the importance of parent engagement in drug education and perceptions of the need for boundaries on parent engagement.

Perceptions of the importance of parent engagement in drug education. Students commented that parents could provide guidance and support and be available in emergencies because they wanted the best for them. Students thought that parental knowledge about drugs was important so that parents could respond appropriately if drug issues arose and support their child, rather than acting without sufficient knowledge.

Well, if a child is going through stuff with drugs and the parents find out, they might not want to risk doing the wrong thing. It’s better if they learn more and get prepared, so they know what they’re doing and how it affects their child. (C5, S2).

They noted that parents needed up-to-date information about drugs:

There are new names for them (…) having parents educated on it is really important because their kid might come to them saying that they’ve like been offered this type of drug, and the parents might not know what the drug actually is. (C2, S4)

Some students felt that messages about drugs were more impactful when coming from parents rather than teachers or external speakers. Parental guidance was described as more trusted and me­morable.

It’s better when your parents tell you something rather than teachers because I think you’d probably listen more. (C3, S8)

A strong theme across schools, was the importance of calm, supportive parental communication. Students reported that anger, shouting or overly strict responses discouraged honesty and help-
seeking:

I think there are better ways to communicate about it, and shouting and that, like they say, support is better than anger. (C2, S8)

Perceptions of the need for boundaries on parent engagement. However, some students voiced concerns about parental involvement, or over-involvement in drug education. Increased parental knowledge could lead to parental anxiety, overreaction or restrictions on students. It was suggested that it might reinforce strict attitudes and that it might not always be a good idea to tell parents about drug experiences and risk getting into trouble:

I think it should be just not too much, because parents can take it too far sometimes, especially when it’s about their own son or daughter. (S3, S3)

Concern about parental reactions might also act as a barrier to discussing drug issues with their parents:

I know loads of people aren’t that comfortable talking to their parents about those types of situations because they wouldn’t want to get in trouble with them. (S2, S7).

Strategies to encourage parent engagement
in drug education

Teachers and students offered ideas for encouraging parents to engage in drug education. These suggestions emerged from teachers’ general discussion and from the question to students “Have you got any ideas how we can get your parents or carers more involved in learning about drugs and involved with drug education?” Strategies included school-based events, external speakers and digital communications. Table IV lists the ideas for what should be delivered for parents and how it should be delivered.

Most of these suggestions are confined to traditional school-initiated ways of involving parents through providing information and opportunities to attend school events with only a few ideas about more creative ways to reach parents.

Reflecting back on student concerns regarding parental involvement voiced in the focus groups, it is important to note that some students perceive limitations in typical forms of parental involvement (such as information sessions, meetings and other school events). This highlights the need to create safe spaces for dialogue – sometimes joint and sometimes separate, depending on the sensitivity of the topic. For example, some students supported the use of external speakers and joint sessions with parents and students:

A speaker coming to the school – maybe parents could bring their child – that’d be good. Both learn it together and have something to talk about. (S3, S3).

Others felt that separate sessions would be better:

Maybe some parents are not taking drugs and some kids are taking drugs they don’t want each other to know – (they) might tell a professional instead, maybe don’t want to tell your mom or your dad. (C5, S4)

^■ Discussion

This paper examined parental engagement within a multi-component, school-based drug edu­cation programme, drawing on the perspectives of parents, teachers and students.

Parents who attended the workshop and returned the survey were positive about the session. They valued information about strategies to enable open dialogue with their children and about where to access practical support, and they reported increased confidence in discussing drugs with their children. However, overall attendance in the workshops and participation in the evaluation were limited, highlighting ongoing challenges in engaging families. Notably, only two males returned the evaluation questionnaire which may indicate, as has been found elsewhere [25], lower participation among men. No respondents described themselves as carers or guardians, indicating another possible group which may be less likely to become involved. We do not know, therefore, the extent to which the workshops (or the evaluation) failed to attract specific groups of parents, including groups identified in other studies as more likely to be disengaged [8, 12, 26].

Parents, teachers and students were asked different questions about parental engagement and, for the most part, the data reported in this paper emerged from open questions and general discussion of the drug education programme, making comparison between the groups difficult. Parents who answered the survey, teachers and students broadly recognised the value of parental engagement with drug education, but they commented on different aspects of the parental role. Parents commented on the usefulness of the workshop content and delivery and made suggestions for issues they would like included in future sessions. Teachers focussed on their understanding of the reasons why parents frequently did not engage. Students also commented on why parents may not engage and provided very similar responses to the teachers. Students also discussed the possible risks as well as benefits of including parents in drug education, an issue that was not raised by teachers or parents.

All respondents pointed to a range of factors that limit the extent to which meaningful engagement is achieved. Practical barriers, frequently identified by teachers and students, included time pressures, work commitments, caring responsibilities and competing priorities. However, there were also systemic and relational barriers to engagement as found elsewhere [11, 12, 15, 25, 27]. Teachers commented that participation in school-based activities was often concentrated among families already engaged with the school, with others remaining harder to reach although, as Crozier and Davies [27] suggest, disengaged parents may perceive the school as “hard to reach”.
Beyond the practical constraints, difficulties in communication and trust were also evident. Teachers reported that some parents perceived drug education as irrelevant to their own children, expressing denial that substance use could affect them. Prior negative experiences of education, including their own experiences, further shaped parents’ willingness to engage, particularly where trust in schools was low. Similar findings have been reported in other research [28, 29].

Students also had concerns around discussing drugs with their parents. They described reluctance to speak openly as due to fear of punishment, restrictions or getting into trouble with their parents, indicating that parental engagement in learning is closely tied to the quality of parent–child relationships. Students emphasised that fear of punishment or parental overreaction discourages disclosure and seeking help. As one student quoted above noted, “support is better than anger” (C2, S8). They also highlighted the importance of parents being informed about drugs in ways that support harm reduction rather than surveillance. Awareness of safer practices and realistic risks was viewed as enabling parents to offer guidance without undermining trust or independence. For some students, reluctance for parents to engage with the school and with drug issues may be linked to difficult home circumstances such as parental substance use [28]. These findings suggest that the effectiveness of parental engagement in learning, especially regarding sensitive topics like drug use, depends on how communication takes place and the degree of trust within the parent–child relationship. This resonates with findings from other studies which highlight the fine line between parental control, found elsewhere to be an effective approach [30, 31], and fostering a warm, enabling environment for the disclosure of drug-related behaviours [5].

Thus, the evaluation of the parent workshop component supports findings from other studies that building confidence and trust, providing communication strategies, and fostering parents’ sense of agency play a key role as the mechanism through which parental support can translate into harm-reducing outcomes for young people. Teachers and students suggested that online deli­very, digital communication and flexible access to materials could increase engagement. There was also support for joint parent–student activities like parents engaging with selected programme components, which could provide shared reference points for discussion. Other research has found that structured parental involvement strategies, like workshops, contracts and pledges, have been shown to strengthen communication and support positive outcomes [9]. However, the effectiveness of such strategies is context dependent, and their impact is limited where practical and relational barriers persist.

The study findings provide further insight into the distinction between parental involvement and parental engagement as outlined in the continuum model proposed by Goodall and Montgomery [14]. The data confirm that progression along the continuum is not linear, particularly in the context of drug education where discussions are sensitive and emotionally charged. Across the accounts of students and teachers, engagement was described less by the extent of parental participation and more by the relational conditions that enabled dialogue to take place. Reported barriers like time constraints, competing priorities and social or economic pressures, appear to limit opportunities for building dialogue, trust, and partnership in learning rather than reflecting a lack of parental concern or interest. Moreover, increased parental knowledge alone was not sufficient to foster engagement and, in some cases, was seen to run the risk of intensifying parental anxiety leading to more restrictive parental practices. These findings suggest that movement along the involvement–engagement continuum is best understood as a relational process that supports parents’ and young people’s agency and facilitates open communication, rather than as a simple extension of parental participation in school-based activities. This has implications for future development of a parental component within drug education programmes.

Limitations of the research. While this study provides valuable insights into parental engagement in school-based drug education, several limi­tations should be considered. The study focused specifically on the parent workshop component of the DSMF programme, which was delivered by an external organisation rather than directly by the schools. This may have influenced both the level and nature of parental engagement and their responses to the survey, as parents’ engagement might differ when activities are school led. It is also possible that this kind of engagement (group information provision and discussion) was not attractive or acceptable for some parents. The relatively small number of parents who attended the workshops and returned usable surveys limits the generalisability of the findings. We did not capture views of the 68 people who attended the workshop but did not return the survey, and we have no information regarding the perceptions or needs of those who did not attend the workshop. As a result, the findings are likely to reflect those of parents who were already more engaged or motivated. In addition, the findings are drawn from the evaluation of a single multi-component programme that was delivered in a small number of schools across three geographic locations in England. While this allowed for in-depth exploration, it may restrict the transferability of the findings. The limited cultural, socio-economic and geogra­phic diversity of the participating schools means that the findings may not be representative of all school contexts in England or elsewhere.

^■ Conclusions

Despite the limitations, the study contributes to ongoing debates about how parental engagement in school drug education activities and in student learning about substance use is conceptualised and implemented. This paper argues that parental engagement in drug education is better understood as an ongoing process rather than as a one-off activity. Engagement emerges through trust, emotional safety and parental confidence, and is shaped by the quality of relationships between parents, their children and schools. The findings suggest a need to move beyond a narrow conceptualisation of parental involvement and towards approaches that prioritise communication, agency, trust and partnership between schools and parents as central mechanisms of engagement in learning about drugs.

For schoolbased drug education programmes, these findings highlight the need to design parent components that go beyond information provision. Strategies that offer practical communication tools, flexible and accessible delivery formats, partnership and co-production of activities with schools, and opportunities for joint or parallel parent–student learning may prove more engaging and more inclusive. Approaches that build trust, particularly for parents with limited time, negative past experiences of schooling, or concerns about stigma, are essential. Overall, fostering meaningful parental engagement requires addressing both structural constraints and the subtle relational dynamics that shape how families communicate about drug use.

While the continuum model provides a useful framework for considering how to shift along the continuum by enhancing parental agency and moving from school-led participation to a more equal partnership approach to learning, its broad focus on general learning may limit its direct application to drug education programmes, which require tailored approaches to address sensitive topics and diverse parental backgrounds. In addition, as in the example of the parent workshop described in this paper, the delivery of resources by an external provider may present particular issues regarding trust and communication with parents and between parents and the school. The findings from this study suggest that movement along the continuum is not linear and is highly dependent on contextual factors. Low levels of parental participation in the programme described here may illustrate not a lack of parental concern or interest in participation but rather the presence of practical constraints, competing priorities, the complexities of communication with external providers and, in some cases, perceptions that drug education is not relevant and not applicable to their own child. These factors appear to limit opportunities for building trust and confidence, which are central to engagement.

Acknowledgements/Podziękowania

We would like to thank the teachers and students who participated in the evaluation. The study benefitted from the work of Nick Hickmott who arranged community stakeholder groups to discuss the wider context of school-based drug education and contributions from Jon Bull who led the preparatory work with teachers and students.

Dziękujemy nauczycielom i uczniom, którzy wzięli udział w ewaluacji. Badanie to wiele zawdzięcza pracy Nicka Hickmotta, który zorganizował spotkania z grupami interesariuszy społecznych, na których omówiono szerszy kontekst szkolnej edukacji profilaktycznej dotyczącej substancji psychoaktywnych, a także Jona Bulla, który kierował pracami przygotowawczymi z udziałem nauczycieli i uczniów.

Availability of data and materials/Dostępność danych

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to potential of identifying participants; however, they are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Zbiory danych wygenerowane i/lub analizowane w trakcie niniejszego badania nie są publicznie dostępne ze względu na możliwość identyfikacji uczestników; można je jednak uzyskać od autora do korespondencji na podstawie uzasadnionej prośby.

Conflict of interest/Konflikt interesów

None declared./Nie występuje.

Financial support/Finansowanie

This paper is based on a study funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Re­search (UK) (NIHR) as part of the Innovation Fund to Reduce Demand for Illicit Substance, Phase 1 and 2 (NIHR206755). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Artykuł powstał na podstawie badania finansowanego przez National Institute of Health and Care Research (Wielka Brytania) (NIHR) w ramach Innovation Fund to Reduce Demand for Illicit Substance, Phase 1 and 2 (NIHR206755). Poglądy wyrażone w artykule są poglądami autorów i niekoniecznie odzwierciedlają poglądy NIHR lub Department of Health and Social Care.

Ethics/Etyka

Ethical approval was granted by/Zgodę komisji etycznej wydała: the Psychology Ethics Committee at Middlesex University, London, UK (Reference 29431). All participants provided fully informed consent./Wszyscy uczestnicy badania wyrazili świadomą zgodę.

The work described in this article has been carried out in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) on medical research involving human subjects, Uniform Requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals and the ethical principles defined in the Farmington Consensus of 1997.

Treści przedstawione w pracy są zgodne z zasadami Deklaracji Helsińskiej odnoszącymi się do badań z udziałem ludzi, ujednoliconymi wymaganiami dla czasopism biomedycznych oraz z zasadami etycznymi określonymi w Porozumieniu z Farmington w 1997 roku.

References/Piśmiennictwo