Blog
About

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

Socioeconomic gradients in the effects of universal school-based health behaviour interventions: a systematic review of intervention studies

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

      BackgroundSocioeconomic inequalities in health behaviour emerge in early life before tracking into adulthood. Many interventions to improve childhood health behaviours are delivered via schools, often targeting poorer areas. However, targeted approaches may fail to address inequalities within more affluent schools. Little is known about types of universal school-based interventions which make inequalities better or worse.MethodsSeven databases were searched using a range of natural language phrases, to identify trials and quasi-experimental evaluations of universal school-based interventions focused on smoking, alcohol, diet and/or physical activity, published from 2008–14. Articles which examined differential effects by socioeconomic status (N = 20) were synthesised using harvest plot methodology. Content analysis of 98 intervention studies examined potential reasons for attention or inattention to effects on inequality.ResultsSearches identified approximately 12,000 hits. Ninety-eight evaluations were identified, including 90 completed studies, of which 20 reported effects on SES inequality. There were substantial geographical biases in reporting of inequality, with only 1 of 23 completed North American studies testing differential effects, compared to 15 out of 52 completed European studies. Studies reported a range of positive, neutral or negative SES gradients in effects. All studies with a negative gradient in effect (i.e. which widened inequality) included educational components alone or in combination with environmental change or family involvement. All studies with positive gradients in effects included environmental change components, alone or combined with education. Effects of multi-level interventions on inequality were inconsistent. Content analyses indicated that in approximately 1 in 4 studies SES inequalities were discussed in defining the problem or rationale for intervention. Other potential barriers to testing effect on inequality included assumptions that universal delivery guaranteed universal effect, or that interventions would work better for poorer groups because they had most to gain.ConclusionsUniversal school-based interventions may narrow, widen or have no effect on inequality. There is a significant need for more routine testing of the effects of such interventions on inequality to enable firmer conclusions regarding types of interventions which affect inequality.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42014014548Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2244-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 62

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Social determinants of health inequalities

       M Marmot (2005)
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Social conditions as fundamental causes of health inequalities: theory, evidence, and policy implications.

        Link and Phelan (1995) developed the theory of fundamental causes to explain why the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and mortality has persisted despite radical changes in the diseases and risk factors that are presumed to explain it. They proposed that the enduring association results because SES embodies an array of resources, such as money, knowledge, prestige, power, and beneficial social connections that protect health no matter what mechanisms are relevant at any given time. In this article, we explicate the theory, review key findings, discuss refinements and limits to the theory, and discuss implications for health policies that might reduce health inequalities. We advocate policies that encourage medical and other health-promoting advances while at the same time breaking or weakening the link between these advances and socioeconomic resources. This can be accomplished either by reducing disparities in socioeconomic resources themselves or by developing interventions that, by their nature, are more equally distributed across SES groups.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion.

           D Stokols (2015)
          Health promotion programs often lack a clearly specified theoretical foundation or are based on narrowly conceived conceptual models. For example, lifestyle modification programs typically emphasize individually focused behavior change strategies, while neglecting the environmental underpinnings of health and illness. This article compares three distinct, yet complementary, theoretical perspectives on health promotion: behavioral change, environmental enhancement, and social ecological models. Key strengths and limitations of each perspective are examined, and core principles of social ecological theory are used to derive practical guidelines for designing and evaluating community health promotion programs. Directions for future health promotion research are discussed, including studies examining the role of intermediaries (e.g., corporate decision-makers, legislators) in promoting the well-being of others, and those evaluating the duration and scope of intervention outcomes.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [ ]DECIPHer, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, 1-3 Museum Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BD UK
            [ ]Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
            Contributors
            02920879609 , MooreG@cardiff.ac.uk
            LittlecottH@cardiff.ac.uk
            TurleyRL@cardiff.ac.uk
            ewaters@unimelb.edu.au
            MurphyS7@cardiff.ac.uk
            Journal
            BMC Public Health
            BMC Public Health
            BMC Public Health
            BioMed Central (London )
            1471-2458
            17 September 2015
            17 September 2015
            2015
            : 15
            4574356
            2244
            10.1186/s12889-015-2244-x
            © Moore et al. 2015

            Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

            Categories
            Research Article
            Custom metadata
            © The Author(s) 2015

            Public health

            Comments

            Comment on this article