↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
83 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting risk factors for chronic disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011677.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luke Wolfenden, Nicole K Nathan, Rachel Sutherland, Sze Lin Yoong, Rebecca K Hodder, Rebecca J Wyse, Tessa Delaney, Alice Grady, Alison Fielding, Flora Tzelepis, Tara Clinton-McHarg, Benjamin Parmenter, Peter Butler, John Wiggers, Adrian Bauman, Andrew Milat, Debbie Booth, Christopher M Williams

Abstract

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 83 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 41 22%
Student > Master 35 19%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Other 49 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 54 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 44 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 19%
Social Sciences 13 7%
Psychology 12 6%
Other 30 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#269,442
of 12,620,777 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#760
of 10,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,656
of 385,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,620,777 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 385,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.