Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Pinki Sahota a School of
Health Sciences, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds LS1 3HE, b Leeds Community and Mental Health Trust, Belmont
House, Leeds LS2 9DE, c School of Medicine, Leeds University,
Leeds LS2 9LT, d Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds LS1
3EX, e Nuffield Institute of Health,
Leeds LS2 9PL Correspondence to: M C J Rudolf Mary.Rudolf{at}leedsth.nhs.uk
| |
Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objectives:
To implement a school based health
promotion programme aimed at reducing risk factors for obesity and to
evaluate the implementation process and its effect on the school.
Design:
Data from 10 schools participating in a group randomised controlled crossover trial were pooled and analysed.
Setting:
10 primary schools in Leeds.
Participants:
634 children (350 boys and 284 girls)
aged 7-11 years.
Main outcome measures:
Response rates to
questionnaires, teachers' evaluation of training and input, success of
school action plans, content of school meals, and children's knowledge
of healthy living and self reported behaviour.
Results:
All 10 schools participated throughout the study. 76 (89%) of the action points determined by schools in their
school action plans were achieved, along with positive changes in
school meals. A high level of support for nutrition education and
promotion of physical activity was expressed by both teachers and
parents. 410 (64%) parents responded to the questionnaire concerning
changes they would like to see implemented in school. 19 out of 20 teachers attended the training, and all reported satisfaction with the
training, resources, and support. Intervention children showed a higher
score for knowledge, attitudes, and self reported behaviour for healthy
eating and physical activity.
Conclusion:
This programme was successfully
implemented and produced changes at school level that tackled risk
factors for obesity.
|
What is already known on this topic
What this study adds
|
| |
Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The prevalence of childhood obesity is increasing throughout the world.1 Within the United Kingdom, estimates of obesity range from 6% in preschool children2 to 17% by age 15. 3 4 Because obesity may track into adulthood5 and adult obesity is difficult to treat, prevention strategies are best targeted at children. 4 6 7
Most obesity interventions have taken place in clinical settings. However, schools also provide an opportunity for preventing and treating obesity. 4 8 9 Most school based approaches have targeted obese children, with most success in primary school aged children.10 An alternative strategy is to implement a primary intervention health promotion programme aimed at all pupils. Again, these initiatives have had some success in the United States,8 although more specific interventions targeted at the different factors influencing children's eating and physical activity behaviours (classroom education, food service, parents) may be needed.9
Despite major resources being deployed towards encouraging health
promotion in schools in the United Kingdom, no rigorously designed
intervention studies of programmes targeting obesity have taken
place.11 Health promotion programmes are unlikely to be
successful if the programme is of poor quality or has not been
efficiently implemented.12 This paper describes and
evaluates the implementation of a health promotion programme in primary schools to prevent risk factors for obesity. The outcome measures relating to weight, diet, and activity, which we evaluated by a
randomised controlled trial, are reported separately.13
| |
Participants and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Intervention programme
The active programme promoting lifestyle education in school
(APPLES) was designed as a multidisciplinary, multiagency programme
using a population approach that was underpinned by the Health
Promoting Schools philosophy.14 This philosophy aims to
link the school with family and community and focuses on the whole
school ethos, including its policies, management style, and attitudes
of staff, so that consistent health messages are given and received.
Participants
Ten state primary schools in Leeds were enrolled into the project
as described in the accompanying article.13 Sociodemographic measures suggested that they were somewhat advantaged schools, with 1-42% of children from ethnic minorities and 7-29% entitled to free school meals (compared with 11% and 25% for Leeds children as a whole).
Design and development of intervention
To inform the design and development of the intervention,
questionnaires were administered to all school staff, including
secretarial and catering staff, and parents of year 4 and 5 pupils. The
questionnaire asked for views about the importance of education on
nutrition and physical activity and whose responsibility that should
be. In addition, parents were asked about changes they would like to
see in school and information they would like to receive. The responses
from these questionnaires were used by schools to develop the school
action plans. The progress towards these targets was monitored by
regular staff meetings and surveys of packed lunches, breaktime snacks,
and playground activities
Focus groups
To determine the effect on children's levels of knowledge and
attitudes towards healthy living, we held focus groups in schools at
the end of the first year. Details are available in the accompanying
paper.14
| |
Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We received questionnaires from 124 school staff before the intervention (62 teachers, 13 non-teaching assistants, 23 special needs assistants, 17 catering staff, and 9 administrative staff). The questionnaire administered by pupil post was completed by 410 (64%) of parents; response rates ranged from 39% to 85% between schools. Table 1 shows the responses of parents and staff to questions relating to the importance and relative responsibility of home and school in engendering a healthy lifestyle in children. Table 2 shows the changes in the school environment that parents hoped to see and the information they felt would be useful. Feedback to the questionnaire and changes within the school were circulated to parents during the year.
|
|
Response rates
Table 3 shows that data were available for over 90% of
pupils for most measures, indicating excellent participation in the
programme by schools and staff. Response rates for the three day diet
and activity diaries were satisfactory and indicated a good level of
commitment by both children and parents.
|
Support and training
Nineteen out of 20 teachers attended the training sessions. In
anonymous questionnaires at the end of the intervention, all reported
that they found the training useful, that the resources were useful and
they would continue to use them, that support during the project was
good, and that they had an increased awareness of healthy eating and
physical activity among pupils.
|
School action plans
All schools elected to incorporate nutrition education into the
curriculum, with additional sessions supplied by the project manager
(table 5). They also included a "fit is fun" programme in physical
education lessons and undertook to improve their health resources. In
total, there were 85 action points with six to 14 points per school
plan; 76 (89%) of these points were successfully achieved. Reasons for
not achieving action points included shortage of time, staff sickness,
and impending inspection by government teaching standards officers.
School meals
Given the emphasis on healthy eating, school meals were an
important aspect of the assessment. Positive changes were seen in all
schools (table 6).
Focus groups
Compared with other children, children who had received the
intervention showed greater understanding of the health benefits of
diet and physical activity; sophistication of ideas and vocabulary
expressed; willingness and confidence to share their ideas as well as
basic knowledge. They also reported behaviour changes and were more
able to recollect topics learnt and activities in school linked to diet
and physical activity.
| |
Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The evaluation of the implementation of this programme to reduce risk factors for obesity in children shows that the project was successful. Parents and school staff clearly felt that school was an important site for influencing children in their lifestyle and were supportive. The response rates for questionnaires were high, reflecting the children's and staff's eagerness to participate and commitment to the project. The schools were ready to accept support and input at both the school and classroom level.
|
|
The results also show that the programme had a noticeable effect in the schools. Eighty nine per cent of the action points in the school action plans were implemented, and there were positive changes in classroom health education, the physical education programme, and the school food service.9 School meals were also improved.
The focus groups supported the sense that the programme had had an effect at school. The children who had participated in the project readily and enthusiastically recalled the activities in which they had been involved. These children also scored higher than did children who had not yet received the programme in terms of knowledge of healthy eating, physical activity, and links between diet and health including obesity. They also attained higher scores for self reported behaviour change.
Ways to tackle obesity
Schools provide an excellent opportunity for preventing and
treating obesity.7-9 They offer continual regular contact
with children and opportunities for nutrition education and promotion
of physical activity both within the formal curriculum and informally
through a supportive environment such as healthy school meals and
breaktime snacks.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank the staff, pupils, and parents of Brodetsky, Cookridge, Fir Tree, Horsforth St Mary's, Moortown, Morley The Newlands, Pudsey Lowtown, Shadwell, Springbank, and Whartons Otley primary schools for their participation, enthusiasm, and support. We also thank Nazia Chaudary and Julia Bartrop for conducting the focus groups and Gail Cook for helping with the evaluation of school meals.
Contributors: PS was the project manager and provided the main input into guiding and supporting the schools through the intervention. She collected and analysed the raw data, coordinated the programme, and drafted the article. MCJR was the principal investigator and coordinated the research team. She supervised the analysis and interpretation of the data and wrote the article jointly with PS. She will act as guarantor for the paper. RD provided the health promoting philosophy and guided the approach taken in designing the APPLES programme. She and AJH, JHB, and JC provided support in conducting the research and contributed intellectual input into the ideas behind and final format of the paper.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: Northern and Yorkshire Region Research and Development Unit funded the research.
Competing interests: None declared.
| |
References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| 1. | World Health Organization. Preventing and managing the global epidemic. Geneva: WHO, 1997. |
| 2. |
Reilly JJ, Dorosty AR, Emmett PM.
Prevalence of overweight and obesity in British children: cohort study.
BMJ
1999;
319:
1039 |
| 3. |
Rudolf MCJ, Sahota P, Barth JH, Walker J.
Increasing prevalence of obesity in primary school children: cohort study.
BMJ
2001;
322:
1094-1095 |
| 4. |
Fruhbeck G.
Childhood obesity: time for action, not complacency
BMJ
2000;
320:
328-329 |
| 5. | Power C, Lake JL, Cole TJ. Measurement and longterm risks of child and adolescent fatness. Int J Obes Metab Dis 1997; 21: 507-526. |
| 6. | Dietz WH. Childhood obesity. In: Bjorntorp P, Brodoff BN, eds. Obesity. Philadelphia: Lipincott, 1992:606-609. |
| 7. | Garrow JS. Importance of obesity. BMJ 1991; 303: 704-706. |
| 8. | Reniscow K. School-based obesity prevention. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993; 699: 154-156[Medline]. |
| 9. | Story M. School-based approaches for preventing and treating obesity. Int J Obes 1999; 23(suppl 2): S43-S51[CrossRef]. |
| 10. | Parcel GS, Simons-Morton BG, O'Hara NM, Baranowski T. School-based programmes to prevent or reduce obesity. In: Krasnegor NA, ed. Childhood obesity: a biobehavioral perspective. Caldwell, NJ: Telford, 1988:143-147. |
| 11. | NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The prevention and treatment of obesity. Effective Health Care Bull 1997;3 (No 2). |
| 12. | Tones K. The health promoting school: some reflections on evaluation. Health Educ Res 1996; 11(4): i-viii. |
| 13. |
Sahota P, Rudolf MCJ, Dixey R, Hill AJ, Barth JH, Cade J.
Randomised controlled trial of primary school based intervention to reduce risk factors for obesity.
BMJ
2001;
323:
1029-1032 |
| 14. | Young I, Williams T, eds. The healthy school. Edinburgh: Scottish Health Education Group, World Health Organization, 1989. |
(Accepted 12 July 2001)
Read all Rapid Responses