2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation of Guidelines for Healthier Canteens in Dutch Secondary Schools: A Process Evaluation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Netherlands Nutrition Centre has developed ‘Guidelines for Healthier Canteens’. To facilitate their implementation, implementation tools were developed: stakeholders’ questionnaires, the ‘Canteen Scan’ (an online tool to assess product availability/accessibility), a tailored advisory meeting/report, communication materials, establishment of an online community, newsletters, and a fact sheet with students’ wishes/needs. In this quasi-experimental study, we investigated the effect of these tools in secondary schools on (a) factors perceived by stakeholders as affecting implementation; (b) the quality of implementation. For six months, ten intervention schools implemented the guidelines, supported by the developed implementation tools. Ten control schools received the guidelines without support. School managers, caterers, and canteen employees ( n = 33) reported on individual and environmental factors affecting implementation. Implementation quality was determined by dose delivered, dose received, and satisfaction. Stakeholders ( n = 24) in intervention schools scored higher on the determinants’ knowledge and motivation and lower on need for support ( p < 0.05). Dose received (received and read) and satisfaction was highest for the advisory meeting/report (67.9%, 64.3%, 4.17), communication materials (60.7%, 50.0%, 3.98), and fact sheet (80%, 60%, 4.31). Qualitative analyses confirmed these quantitative results. In conclusion, a combination of implementation tools that includes students’ wishes, tailored information/feedback, reminders and examples of healthier products/accessibility supports stakeholders in creating a healthier school canteen.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The efficacy of nudge theory strategies in influencing adult dietary behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

          Background Obesity has become a world-wide epidemic and is spreading to countries with emerging economies. Previously tested interventions are often too costly to maintain in the long term. This leaves a need for improved strategies for management of the epidemic. Nudge Theory presents a new collection of methods, deemed “nudges”, which have the potential for low-cost and broad application to guide healthier lifestyle choices without the need for restrictive regulation. There has not yet been a large-scale examination of the effectiveness of nudges, despite several policy making bodies now considering their use. Methods To address this gap in knowledge, an adapted systematic review methodology was used to collect and consolidate results from current Nudge papers and to determine whether Nudge strategies are successful in changing adults’ dietary choices for healthier ones. Results It was found that nudges resulted in an average 15.3 % increase in healthier dietary or nutritional choices, as measured by a change in frequency of healthy choices or a change in overall caloric consumption. All of the included studies were from wealthy nations, with a particular emphasis on the United States with 31 of 42 included experiments. Conclusions This analysis demonstrates Nudge holds promise as a public health strategy to combat obesity. More research is needed in varied settings, however, and future studies should aim to replicate previous results in more geographically and socioeconomically diverse countries. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3272-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Measures of fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with, complex, face‐to‐face health behaviour change interventions: A systematic review of measure quality

            Purpose Understanding the effectiveness of complex, face‐to‐face health behaviour change interventions requires high‐quality measures to assess fidelity of delivery and engagement. This systematic review aimed to (1) identify the types of measures used to monitor fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with, complex, face‐to‐face health behaviour change interventions and (2) describe the reporting of psychometric and implementation qualities. Methods Electronic databases were searched, systematic reviews and reference lists were hand‐searched, and 21 experts were contacted to identify articles. Studies that quantitatively measured fidelity of delivery of, and/or engagement with, a complex, face‐to‐face health behaviour change intervention for adults were included. Data on interventions, measures, and psychometric and implementation qualities were extracted and synthesized using narrative analysis. Results Sixty‐six studies were included: 24 measured both fidelity of delivery and engagement, 20 measured fidelity of delivery, and 22 measured engagement. Measures of fidelity of delivery included observation (n = 17; 38.6%), self‐report (n = 15; 34%), quantitatively rated qualitative interviews (n = 1; 2.3%), or multiple measures (n = 11; 25%). Measures of engagement included self‐report (n = 18; 39.1%), intervention records (n = 11; 24%), or multiple measures (n = 17; 37%). Fifty‐one studies (77%) reported at least one psychometric or implementation quality; 49 studies (74.2%) reported at least one psychometric quality, and 17 studies (25.8%) reported at least one implementation quality. Conclusion Fewer than half of the reviewed studies measured both fidelity of delivery of, and engagement with complex, face‐to‐face health behaviour change interventions. More studies reported psychometric qualities than implementation qualities. Interpretation of intervention outcomes from fidelity of delivery and engagement measurements may be limited due to a lack of reporting of psychometric and implementation qualities. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Evidence of fidelity and engagement is needed to understand effectiveness of complex interventions Evidence of fidelity and engagement are rarely reported High‐quality measures are needed to measure fidelity and engagement What does this study add? Evidence that indicators of quality of measures are reported in some studies Evidence that psychometric qualities are reported more frequently than implementation qualities A recommendation for intervention evaluations to report indicators of quality of fidelity and engagement measures
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting risk factors for chronic disease

              A number of school‐based policies or practices have been found to be effective in improving child diet and physical activity, and preventing excessive weight gain, tobacco or harmful alcohol use. Schools, however, frequently fail to implement such evidence‐based interventions. The primary aims of the review are to examine the effectiveness of strategies aiming to improve the implementation of school‐based policies, programs or practices to address child diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco or alcohol use. Secondary objectives of the review are to: Examine the effectiveness of implementation strategies on health behaviour (e.g. fruit and vegetable consumption) and anthropometric outcomes (e.g. BMI, weight); describe the impact of such strategies on the knowledge, skills or attitudes of school staff involved in implementing health‐promoting policies, programs or practices; describe the cost or cost‐effectiveness of such strategies; and describe any unintended adverse effects of strategies on schools, school staff or children. All electronic databases were searched on 16 July 2017 for studies published up to 31 August 2016. We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; MEDLINE In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations; Embase Classic and Embase; PsycINFO; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); Dissertations and Theses; and SCOPUS. We screened reference lists of all included trials for citations of other potentially relevant trials. We handsearched all publications between 2011 and 2016 in two specialty journals ( Implementation Science and Journal of Translational Behavioral Medicine ) and conducted searches of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) ( http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ) as well as the US National Institutes of Health registry ( https://clinicaltrials.gov ). We consulted with experts in the field to identify other relevant research. 'Implementation' was defined as the use of strategies to adopt and integrate evidence‐based health interventions and to change practice patterns within specific settings. We included any trial (randomised or non‐randomised) conducted at any scale, with a parallel control group that compared a strategy to implement policies or practices to address diet, physical activity, overweight or obesity, tobacco or alcohol use by school staff to 'no intervention', 'usual' practice or a different implementation strategy. Citation screening, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was performed by review authors in pairs. Disagreements between review authors were resolved via consensus, or if required, by a third author. Considerable trial heterogeneity precluded meta‐analysis. We narratively synthesised trial findings by describing the effect size of the primary outcome measure for policy or practice implementation (or the median of such measures where a single primary outcome was not stated). We included 27 trials, 18 of which were conducted in the USA. Nineteen studies employed randomised controlled trial (RCT) designs. Fifteen trials tested strategies to implement healthy eating policies, practice or programs; six trials tested strategies targeting physical activity policies or practices; and three trials targeted tobacco policies or practices. Three trials targeted a combination of risk factors. None of the included trials sought to increase the implementation of interventions to delay initiation or reduce the consumption of alcohol. All trials examined multi‐strategic implementation strategies and no two trials examined the same combinations of implementation strategies. The most common implementation strategies included educational materials, educational outreach and educational meetings. For all outcomes, the overall quality of evidence was very low and the risk of bias was high for the majority of trials for detection and performance bias. Among 13 trials reporting dichotomous implementation outcomes—the proportion of schools or school staff (e.g. classes) implementing a targeted policy or practice—the median unadjusted (improvement) effect sizes ranged from 8.5% to 66.6%. Of seven trials reporting the percentage of a practice, program or policy that had been implemented, the median unadjusted effect (improvement), relative to the control ranged from ‐8% to 43%. The effect, relative to control, reported in two trials assessing the impact of implementation strategies on the time per week teachers spent delivering targeted policies or practices ranged from 26.6 to 54.9 minutes per week. Among trials reporting other continuous implementation outcomes, findings were mixed. Four trials were conducted of strategies that sought to achieve implementation 'at scale', that is, across samples of at least 50 schools, of which improvements in implementation were reported in three trials. The impact of interventions on student health behaviour or weight status were mixed. Three of the eight trials with physical activity outcomes reported no significant improvements. Two trials reported reductions in tobacco use among intervention relative to control. Seven of nine trials reported no between‐group differences on student overweight, obesity or adiposity. Positive improvements in child dietary intake were generally reported among trials reporting these outcomes. Three trials assessed the impact of implementation strategies on the attitudes of school staff and found mixed effects. Two trials specified in the study methods an assessment of potential unintended adverse effects, of which, they reported none. One trial reported implementation support did not significantly increase school revenue or expenses and another, conducted a formal economic evaluation, reporting the intervention to be cost‐effective. Trial heterogeneity, and the lack of consistent terminology describing implementation strategies, were important limitations of the review. Given the very low quality of the available evidence, it is uncertain whether the strategies tested improve implementation of the targeted school‐based policies or practices, student health behaviours, or the knowledge or attitudes of school staff. It is also uncertain if strategies to improve implementation are cost‐effective or if they result in unintended adverse consequences. Further research is required to guide efforts to facilitate the translation of evidence into practice in this setting. Improving the implementation of school‐based policies and practices to improve student health The review question: The review sought to assess how effective strategies were in supporting the implementation of school‐based policies and practices to address student diet, physical activity, excessive weight gain, tobacco or alcohol use. We also assessed if these strategies led to improvements in these student health behaviours or weight status, enhanced school staff attitudes or knowledge regarding implementation, had any adverse effects, and were cost‐effective. Background: Research has identified a range of school‐based policies and practices that may be potentially effective in improving student health behaviours. Despite this, such policies and practices are often not implemented in schools, even in circumstances where it is mandatory to do so. Unless evidence‐based policies and practices are implemented, they can not benefit public health. Study characteristics: We included 27 trials, 18 of which were conducted in the USA. Fifeteen trials tested strategies to implement healthy eating policies, practice or programs; six trials tested strategies targeting physical activity policies or practices; and three trials targeted tobacco policies or practices. Three trials targeted a combination of health behaviours. None of the included trials sought to increase the implementation of interventions to delay initiation or reduce the consumption of alcohol. The trials tested a range of implementation support strategies, including educational materials, educational meetings, the use of opinion leaders, external funding, local consensus processes, and tailored interventions. Search date: The evidence is current to 31 August 2016. Key results: It is uncertain whether the strategies tested improve implementation of the targeted school‐based policies or practices, student health behaviours, or the knowledge or attitudes of school staff. It is also uncertain whether the strategies tested result in unintended adverse effects or whether they are cost‐effective. Limitations: Trial heterogeneity, and the lack of consistent terminology describing implementation strategies were important limitations of the review. Quality of evidence: We rated the overall quality of evidence as very low for all outcomes that included trial‐reported effects.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                15 November 2019
                November 2019
                : 16
                : 22
                : 4509
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; info@ 123456ellisvyth.nl (E.L.V.); j.c.seidell@ 123456vu.nl (J.C.S.); carry.renders@ 123456vu.nl (C.M.R.)
                [2 ]Netherlands Nutrition Centre, PO Box 85700, 2508 CK The Hague, The Netherlands; veldhuis@ 123456voedingscentrum.nl (L.V.); jacobs@ 123456voedingscentrum.nl (S.M.J.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: i.j.evenhuis@ 123456vu.nl
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4148-0763
                Article
                ijerph-16-04509
                10.3390/ijerph16224509
                6887932
                31731619
                16d5f8c2-8400-4979-8ec5-3cf6d1e7f631
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 27 September 2019
                : 12 November 2019
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                process evaluation,implementation,school canteen,policy,nutrition
                Public health
                process evaluation, implementation, school canteen, policy, nutrition

                Comments

                Comment on this article