Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Implementation of strategies to increase adolescents’ access to fruit and vegetables at school: process evaluation findings from the Boost study

Authors: Anne Kristine Aarestrup, Thea Suldrup Jørgensen, Sanne Ellegaard Jørgensen, Deanna M Hoelscher, Pernille Due, Rikke Krølner

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Access to fruit and vegetables (FV) is associated with adolescents’ FV consumption. However, little is known about implementation of strategies to increase access to FV at schools. We examined the implementation of two environmental components designed to increase access to FV at Danish schools.

Methods

We used data from 20 intervention schools involved in the school-based multicomponent Boost trial targeting 13-year-olds’ FV consumption. The environmental components at school included daily provision of free FV and promotion of a pleasant eating environment.
Questionnaire data was collected by the end of the nine-month intervention period among 1,121 pupils (95%), from all school principals (n = 20) and half way through the intervention period and by the end of the intervention among 114 teachers (44%).
The implementation of the components was examined descriptively using the following process evaluation measures; fidelity, dose delivered, dose received and reach. Schools with stable high implementation levels over time were characterised by context, intervention appreciation and implementation of other components.

Results

For all process evaluation measures, the level of implementation varied by schools, classes and over time. Dose received: 45% of pupils (school range: 13-72%, class range: 7-77%) ate the provided FV daily; 68% of pupils (school range: 40-93%, class range: 24-100%) reported that time was allocated to eating FV in class. Reach: The intake of FV provided did not differ by SEP nor gender, but more girls and low SEP pupils enjoyed eating FV together. Dose delivered: The proportion of teachers offering FV at a daily basis decreased over time, while the proportion of teachers cutting up FV increased over time. Schools in which high proportions of teachers offered FV daily throughout the intervention period were characterized by being: small; having a low proportion of low SEP pupils; having a school food policy; high teacher- and pupil intervention appreciation; having fewer teachers who cut up FV; and having high implementation of educational components.

Conclusions

The appliance of different approaches and levels of analyses to describe data provided comprehension and knowledge of the implementation process. This knowledge is crucial for the interpretation of intervention effect.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11666034
Literature
1.
Bazzano LA. The high cost of not consuming fruits and vegetables. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106:1364–8.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Hung HC, Joshipura KJ, Jiang R, Hu FB, Hunter D, Smith-Warner SA, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of major chronic disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1577–84.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Yngve A, Wolf A, Poortvliet E, Elmadfa I, Brug J, Ehrenblad B, et al. Fruit and vegetable intake in a sample of 11-year-old children in 9 European countries: The Pro Children Cross-sectional Survey. Ann Nutr Metab. 2005;49:236–45.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Vereecken CA, De Henauw S, Maes L. Adolescents' food habits: results of the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children survey. Br J Nutr. 2005;94:423–31.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Vereecken C. Section 3: Health behaviours. Eating behaviour: Fruit consumption. In: Inequalities in young people's health. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children international report from the 2005/2006 survey. Copenhagen: WHO; 2008.
6.
Crosnoe R, Johnson MK. Research on adolescence in the twenty-first century. Annu Rev Sociol. 2011;37:439–60.CrossRef
7.
Blanchette L, Brug J. Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among 6-12-year-old children and effective interventions to increase consumption. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2005;18:431–43.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:327–50.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Linnan L, Steckler A. Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research: An Overview. In: Steckler A, Linnan L, editors. Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002. p. 1–29.
10.
Potter SC, Schneider D, Coyle KK, May G, Robin L, Seymour J. What works? Process evaluation of a school-based fruit and vegetable distribution program in Mississippi. J Sch Health. 2011;81:202–11.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Bere E, Veierod MB, Bjelland M, Klepp KI. Outcome and process evaluation of a Norwegian school-randomized fruit and vegetable intervention: Fruits and Vegetables Make the Marks (FVMM). Health Educ Res. 2006;21:258–67.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Wind M, Bjelland M, Perez-Rodrigo C, te Velde SJ, Hildonen C, Bere E, et al. Appreciation and implementation of a school-based intervention are associated with changes in fruit and vegetable intake in 10- to 13-year old school children–the Pro Children study. Health Educ Res. 2008;23:997–1007.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Nathan N, Wolfenden L, Butler M, Bell AC, Wyse R, Campbell E, et al. Vegetable and fruit breaks in Australian primary schools: prevalence, attitudes, barriers and implementation strategies. Health Educ Res. 2011;26:722–31.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Gingiss PL, Gottlieb NH, Brink SG. Increasing teacher receptivity toward use of tobacco prevention education programs. J Drug Educ. 1994;24:163–76.CrossRefPubMed
15.
McCormick LK, Steckler AB, McLeroy KR. Diffusion of innovations in schools: a study of adoption and implementation of school-based tobacco prevention curricula. Am J Health Promot. 1995;9:210–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Noell GH, Witt JC, LaFleur LH, Mortenson BP, Ranier DD, LeVelle J. Increasing intervention implementation in general education following consultation: a comparison of two follow-up strategies. J Appl Behav Anal. 2000;33:271–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Rohrbach LA, Graham JW, Hansen WB. Diffusion of a school-based substance abuse prevention program: predictors of program implementation. Prev Med. 1993;22:237–60.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Tappe MK, Galer-Unit RA, Bailey KC. Long-term implementation of the teenage health teaching modules by trained teachers: a case study. J Sch Health. 1995;65:411–5.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Vadasy PF, Antil LR, Phillips NB, Pool K. The Research-to-Practice Ball Game: Classwide Peer Tutoring and Teacher Interest, Implementation, and Modifications. Remedial Spec Educ. 1997;18:143.CrossRef
20.
Rasmussen M, Krølner R, Klepp KI, Lytle L, Brug J, Bere E, et al. Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: a review of the literature. Part I: Quantitative studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;3:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Aarestrup AK, Krølner R, Suldrup Jørgensen T, Evans A, Due P, Tjørnhøj-Thomsen T. Implementing a free school-based fruit and vegetable programme: Barriers and facilitators experienced by pupils, teachers and produce suppliers in the Boost study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Yildirim M, van Stralen MM, Chinapaw MJ, Brug J, van Mechelen W, Twisk JW, et al. For whom and under what circumstances do school-based energy balance behavior interventions work? Systematic review on moderators. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2011;6:e46–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
24.
Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M, Hansen WB. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Educ Res. 2003;18:237–56.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Martens M, van Assema P, Paulussen T, Schaalma H, Brug J. Krachtvoer: process evaluation of a Dutch programme for lower vocational schools to promote healthful diet. Health Educ Res. 2006;21:695–704.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Bartholomew LK. Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.
28.
Krølner R, Suldrup Jørgensen T, Aarestrup AK, Hjøllund CA, Christensen AM, Due P. The Boost study: design of a school- and community-based randomised trial to promote fruit and vegetable consumption among teenagers. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:191.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Aarestrup AK, Due P, Suldrup Jørgensen T, Krølner R. A six-step protocol to systematic process evaluation of multicomponent cluster-randomized health promoting interventions illustrated by the Boost study. Eval Program Plann. 2014;46:58.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Baranowski T, Stables G. Process evaluations of the 5-a-day projects. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27:157–66.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6:134–47.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Suldrup Jørgensen T, Krølner R, Aarestrup AK, Tjørnhøj-Thomsen T, Due P, Rasmussen M. Barriers and facilitators for teachers' implementation of the curricular component of the Boost intervention targeting adolescents' fruit and vegetable intake. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014;46:e1.CrossRef
33.
Christensen U, Krølner R, Nilsson CJ, Lyngbye PW, Hougaard CØ, Nygaard E. Addressing social inequality in ageing by the Danish Occupational Social Class measurement. J Aging Health. 2014;26:106–27.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Krølner R, Johansen A. Social ulighed i sundhed. Begreber og måling. [Social inequalities in health. Concepts and measurement]. In: Johansen A, Holstein BE, Andersen A, editors. Social ulighed i sundhed blandt børn og unge. [Social inequalities in health among children and adolescents]. Copenhagen: National Institute of Public Health; 2007. p. 17–29.
35.
Clark T. We're Over-Researched Here! Exploring Accounts of Research Fatigue within Qualitative Research Engagements. Sociology. 2008;42:953–70.CrossRef
36.
37.
Buston K, Wight D, Hart G, Scott S. Implementation of a teacher-delivered sex education programme: obstacles and facilitating factors. Health Educ Res. 2002;17:59–72.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Cho H, Nadow MZ. Understanding barriers to implementing quality lunch and nutrition education. J Community Health. 2004;29:421–35.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Easthope C, Easthope G. Intensification, Extension and Complexity of Teachers' Workload. Brit J Sociol Educ. 2000;21:43–58.CrossRef
40.
Glasgow RE, Marcus AC, Bull SS, Wilson KM. Disseminating effective cancer screening interventions. Cancer. 2004;101:1239–50.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Knai C, Pomerleau J, Lock K, McKee M. Getting children to eat more fruit and vegetables: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2006;42:85–95.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Lytle LA, Murray DM, Perry CL, Story M, Birnbaum AS, Kubik MY, et al. School-based approaches to affect adolescents' diets: results from the TEENS study. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31:270–87.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Sy A, Glanz K. Factors influencing teachers' implementation of an innovative tobacco prevention curriculum for multiethnic youth: Project SPLASH. J Sch Health. 2008;78:264–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Newell SA, Huddy AD, Adams JK, Miller M, Holden L, Dietrich UC. The tooty fruity vegie project: changing knowledge and attitudes about fruits and vegetables. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2004;28:288–95.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Lien N, Bjelland M, Bergh IH, Grydeland M, Anderssen SA, Ommundsen Y, et al. Design of a 20-month comprehensive, multicomponent school-based randomised trial to promote healthy weight development among 11–13 year olds: The HEalth In Adolescents study. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38:38–51.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Christian MS, Evans CE, Ransley JK, Greenwood DC, Thomas JD, Cade JE. Process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based fruit and vegetable intervention: Project Tomato. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15:459–65.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Rohrbach LA, D'Onofrio CN, Backer TE. Diffusion of school-based substance abuse prevention programs. Am Behav Sci. 1996;39:919–34.CrossRef
48.
Rasmussen M, Krolner R, Svastisalee CM, Due P, Holstein BE. Secular trends in fruit intake among Danish schoolchildren, 1988 to 2006: changing habits or methodological artefacts? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Resnicow K, Davis M, Smith M, Lazarus-Yaroch A, Baranowski T, Baranowski J, et al. How best to measure implementation of school health curricula: a comparison of three measures. Health Educ Res. 1998;13:239–50.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Jansen E, Mulkens S, Jansen A. How to promote fruit consumption in children. Visual appeal versus restriction. Appetite. 2010;54:599–602.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Krølner R, Rasmussen M, Brug J, Klepp KI, Wind M, Due P. Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: a review of the literature. Part II: qualitative studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:112.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Ross S. 'Do I really have to eat that?': A qualitative study of schoolchildren's food choices and preferences. Health Education Journal. 1995;54:312–21.CrossRef
53.
Husby I, Heitmann BL, O'Doherty JK. Meals and snacks from the child's perspective: the contribution of qualitative methods to the development of dietary interventions. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12:739–47.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Implementation of strategies to increase adolescents’ access to fruit and vegetables at school: process evaluation findings from the Boost study
Authors
Anne Kristine Aarestrup
Thea Suldrup Jørgensen
Sanne Ellegaard Jørgensen
Deanna M Hoelscher
Pernille Due
Rikke Krølner
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1399-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Household antimicrobial self-medication: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the burden, risk factors and outcomes in developing countries

Research article

Effect of an intervention to enhance guideline adherence of occupational physicians on return-to-work self-efficacy in workers sick-listed with common mental disorders

Research article

Subjective health of undocumented migrants in Germany – a mixed methods approach

Research article

The association between income inequality and all-cause mortality across urban communities in Korea

Research article

Not living with both parents is associated with more health- and developmental problems in infants aged 7 to 11 months: a cross sectional study

Research article

Examining the influence of a text message-based sleep and physical activity intervention among young adult smokers in the United States