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
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Systematic review

Implementing health promotion programmes in schools: a realist systematic review of research and experience in the United Kingdom

Authors: M. Pearson, R. Chilton, K. Wyatt, C. Abraham, T. Ford, HB Woods, R. Anderson

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Schools have long been viewed as a good setting in which to encourage healthy lifestyles amongst children, and schools in many countries aspire to more comprehensive, integrated approaches to health promotion. Recent reviews have identified evidence of the effects of school health promotion on children’s and young people’s health. However, understanding of how such programmes can be implemented in schools is more limited.

Methods

We conducted a realist review to identify the conditions and actions which lead to the successful implementation of health promotion programmes in schools. We used the international literature to develop programme theories which were then tested using evaluations of school health promotion programmes conducted in the United Kingdom (UK). Iterative searching and screening was conducted to identify sources and clear criteria applied for appraisal of included sources. A review advisory group comprising educational and public health practitioners, commissioners, and academics was established at the outset.

Results

In consultation with the review advisory group, we developed four programme theories (preparing for implementation, initial implementation, embedding into routine practice, adaptation and evolution); these were then refined using the UK evaluations in the review. This enabled us to identify transferable mechanisms and enabling and constraining contexts and investigate how the operation of mechanisms differed in different contexts. We also identified steps that should be taken at a senior level in relation to preparing for implementation (which revolved around negotiation about programme delivery) and initial implementation (which centred on facilitation, support, and reciprocity—the latter for both programme deliverers and pupils). However, the depth and rigour of evidence concerning embedding into routine practice and adaptation and evolution was limited.

Conclusions

Our findings provide guidance for the design, implementation, and evaluation of health promotion in schools and identify the areas where further research is needed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
WHO. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Geneva: WHO; 1986.
2.
World Health Organization. Promoting health through schools: report of a WHO expert committee on comprehensive school health and education. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1997.
3.
4.
Deschesnes M, Martin C, Hill AJ. Comprehensive approaches to school health promotion: how to achieve broader implementation. Health Promot Int. 2003;18(4):387–96.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Samdal O, Rowling L. Theoretical and empirical base for implementation components of health-promoting schools. Health Educ. 2011;111(5):367–90.CrossRef
6.
Parsons C, Stears D, Thomas C. The health promoting school in Europe: conceptualising and evaluating the change. Health Educ J. 1996;55(3):311–21.CrossRef
7.
St Leger LH. The opportunities and effectiveness of the health promoting primary school in improving child health - a review of the claims and evidence. Health Educ Res. 1999;14(1):51–69.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Keshavarz N, Nutbeam D, Rowling L, Khavarpour F. Schools as social complex adaptive systems: a new way to understand the challenges of introducing the health promoting schools concept. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1467–74.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E et al. The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014;2014(4 Art. No. CD008958). doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD008958.​pub2.
10.
Bonell C, Wells H, Harden A, Jamal F, Fletcher A, Thomas J, et al. The effect on student health of interventions modifying the school environment: systematic review. J Epidemiol Community. 2013;67:677–81.CrossRef
11.
Jamal F, Fletcher A, Harden A, Wells H, Thomas J, Bonell C. The school environment and student health: a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative research. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:798.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Gugglberger L, Inchley J. Phases of health promotion implementation into the Scottish school system. Health Promot Int. 2012;29(2):256–66.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Hall WJ, Zeveloff A, Steckler A, Schneider M, Thompson D, Pham T, et al. Process evaluation results from the HEALTHY physical education intervention. Health Educ Res. 2012;27(2):307–18.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Bartholomew L, Parcel G, Kok G, Gottlieb N, Fernandez M. Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.
15.
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(2):237–56.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Ozer EJ. Contextual effects in school-based violence prevention programs: a conceptual framework and empirical review. J Prim Prev. 2006;27(3):315–40.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Anderson R. New MRC guidance on evaluating complex intervention: clarifying what interventions work by researching how and why they are effective. Br Med J. 2008;337:a1937.CrossRef
18.
Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage Publications; 2006.CrossRef
19.
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review: a new method of systematic review for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005;10(S1):21–34.CrossRef
20.
Kellogg Foundation WK. Logic model development guide. Battle Creek: W.K. Kellogg Foundation; 2004.
21.
Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. London: MRC; 2014.
22.
Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. London: Verso; 2008.
23.
24.
Pawson R, Owen L, Wong G. The Today Programme’s contribution to evidence-based policy. Evaluation. 2010;16(2):211–3.CrossRef
25.
26.
Schulz R, Czaja SJ, McKay JR, Ory MG, Belle SH. Intervention Taxonomy (ITAX): describing essential features of interventions. Am J Health Behav. 2010;34(6):811–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Pearson M, Chilton R, Woods HB, Wyatt K, Ford T, Abraham C, et al. Implementing health promotion in schools: protocol for a realist systematic review of research and experience in the United Kingdom. Syst Rev. 2012;1:48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
29.
Ritzer G. Meta-theorizing in Sociology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1991.
30.
Roen K, Arai L, Roberts H, Popay J. Extending systematic reviews to include evidence on implementation: methodological work on a review of community-based initiatives to prevent injuries. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:1060–71.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2014.
32.
Greenberg MT, Domitrovich CE, Gracyk PA, Zins JE. The study of implementation in school-based preventive interventions: theory, research and practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2005.
33.
Adelman HS, Taylor L. Toward a scale-up model for replicating new approaches to schooling. J Educ Psychol Consult. 1997;8(2):197–230.CrossRef
34.
Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Hansen WB, Walsh J, Falco M. Quality of implementation: developing measures crucial to understanding the diffusion of preventive interventions. Health Educ J. 2005;20(3):308–13.
35.
Wallace A, Croucher K, Quilgars D, Baldwin S. Meeting the challenge: developing systematic reviewing in social policy. Policy and Politics. 2004;32(4):455–70.CrossRef
36.
Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. London: Sage Publications; 1988.CrossRef
37.
38.
39.
Lanham HJ, Leykum LK, Taylor BS, McCannon CJ, Lindberg C, Lester RT. How complexity science can inform scale-up and spread in health care: understanding the role of self-organization in variation across local contexts. Soc Sci Med. 2013;93:194–202.PubMedCrossRef
40.
41.
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science. 2009;4:50.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Lowden K, Quinn J, Kirk S. Evaluation of the Active Primary School Pilot Programme: research report no.90. Edinburgh: Sport Scotland; 2004.
43.
Sahota P, Rudolf MC, Dixey R, Hill AJ, Barth JH, Cade J, et al. Evaluation of implementation and effect of primary school based intervention to reduce risk factors for obesity. BMJ. 2001;323(7320):1027–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
Audrey S, Cordall K, Moore L, Cohen D, Campbell R. The development and implementation of a peer-led intervention to prevent smoking among secondary school students using their established social networks. Health Educ J. 2004;63(3):266–84.CrossRef
45.
Audrey S, Holliday J, Campbell R. Commitment and compatibility: teachers’ perspectives on the implementation of an effective school-based, peer-led smoking intervention. Health Educ J. 2008;67(2):74–90.CrossRef
46.
Audrey S, Holliday J, Campbell R. It’s good to talk: adolescent perspectives of an informal, peer-led intervention to reduce smoking. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:320–34.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Holliday J, Audrey S, Moore L, Parry-Langdon N, Campbell R. High fidelity? How should we consider variations in the delivery of school-based health promotion interventions? Health Educ J. 2009;68(1):44–62.CrossRef
48.
Stead M, Stradling B, MacKintosh Anne M, MacNeil M, Minty S, Eadie D. Delivery of the Blueprint programme: report. Stirling: University of Stirling; 2007.
49.
Stead M, Stradling R, MacNeil M, MacKintosh AM, Minty S, Stead M, et al. Implementation evaluation of the Blueprint multi-component drug prevention programme: fidelity of school component delivery. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2007;26(6):653–64.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Blueprint Evaluation Team. Blueprint drugs education: the response of pupils and parents to the programme. London: Home Office; 2007.
51.
Frederick K, Barlow J. The Citizenship Safety Project: a pilot study. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(1):87–96.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Warren JM, Henry CJ, Lightowler HJ, Bradshaw SM, Perwaiz S, Warren JM, et al. Evaluation of a pilot school programme aimed at the prevention of obesity in children. Health Promot Int. 2003;18(4):287–96.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Newman R, Nutbeam D. Teachers’ views of the Family Smoking Education Project. Health Educ J. 1989;48(1):9–13.CrossRef
54.
Lowden K, Powney J. An evolving sexual health education programme: from health workers to teachers. Glasgow: The Scottish Council for Research in Education; 1996.
55.
Wyatt KM, Lloyd JJ, Creanor S, Logan S. The development, feasibility and acceptability of a school-based obesity prevention programme: results from three phases of piloting. BMJ Open. 2011;1:e000026.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Rothwell H, Segrott J. Preventing alcohol misuse in young people aged 9-11 years through promoting family communication: an exploratory evaluation of the Kids, Adults Together (KAT) Programme. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:810.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Stead M, MacKintosh AM, Eadie D, Hastings G. NE Choices: the results of a multi-component drug prevention programme for adolescents (DPAS paper no 14). London: Home Office; 2001.
58.
Teeman D, Reed F, Bielby G, Scott E, Sims D. Evaluation of the PhunkyFoods Programme. Final report. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research; 2008.
59.
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(3):459–65.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Forrest S, Strange V, Ann O. A comparison of students’ evaluations of a peer-delivered sex education programme and teacher-led provision. Sex Educ. 2002;2(3):195–214.CrossRef
61.
Strange V, Forrest S, Oakley A. Peer-led sex education - characteristics of peer educators and their perceptions of the impact on them of participation in a peer education programme. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(3):327–37.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Strange V, Forrest S, Oakley A. What influences peer-led sex education in the classroom? A view from the peer educators. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(3):339–49.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Oakley A, Strange V, Stephenson J, Forrest S, Moneiro H. Evaluating processes: a case study of a randomized controlled trial of sex education. Evaluation. 2004;10(4):440–62.CrossRef
64.
Stephenson JM, Strange V, Forrest S, Oakley A, Copas A, Allen E, et al. Pupil-led sex education in England (RIPPLE study): cluster-randomised intervention trial. Lancet. 2004;364(9431):338–46.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Strange V, Allen E, Oakley A, Bonell C, Johnson A, Stephenson J. Integrating process with outcome data in a randomized controlled trial of sex education. Evaluation. 2006;12(3):330–52.CrossRef
66.
Stathi A, Nordin S, Riddoch C. Evaluation of the ‘Schools on the Move’ project. London: Middlesex University; 2006.
67.
Wight D, Buston K, Henderson M. The SHARE project: a rigorous evaluation of teacher-led sex education. Sex Education Matters. 1998;16:10–1.
68.
Wight D, Abraham C. From psycho-social theory to sustainable classroom practice: developing a research-based teacher-delivered sex education programme. Health Educ Res. 2000;15:25–38.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Buston K, Hart G. Heterosexism and homophobia in Scottish school sex education: exploring the nature of the problem. J Adolesc. 2001;24:95–109.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Buston K, Wight D, Scott S. Difficulty and diversity: the context and practice of sex education. Brit J Sociol Educ. 2001;22(3):353–268.CrossRef
71.
Buston K, Wight D, Hart G, Scott S, Buston K, Wight D, et al. Implementation of a teacher-delivered sex education programme: obstacles and facilitating factors. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(1):59–72.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Buston K, Wight D, Hart G. Inside the sex education classroom: the importance of class context in engaging pupils. Cult Health Sex. 2002;4(3):317–35.CrossRef
73.
Buston K, Wight D. The salience and utility of school sex education to young women. Sex Educ. 2002;2(3):233–50.CrossRef
74.
Wight D, Raab G, Henderson M, Abraham C, Buston K, Hart G, et al. The limits of teacher-delivered sex education: interim behavioural outcomes from a randomised trial. Br Med J. 2002;324:1430–3.CrossRef
75.
Wight D, Buston K. Meeting needs but not changing goals: evaluation of inservice teacher training for sex education. Oxford Rev Educ. 2003;29(4):521–43.CrossRef
76.
Buston K, Wight D. Pupils’ participation in sex education lessons: understanding variation across classes. Sex Educ. 2004;4(3):285–301.CrossRef
77.
Newman R, Smith C, Nutbeam D. Teachers’ views of the ‘Smoking And Me’ project. Health Educ J. 1991;50(3):107–10.CrossRef
78.
Crosswaite C, Tooby J, Cyster R. SPICED: evaluation of a drug education project in Kirklees primary schools… Schools Partnership in Children’s Education on Drugs. Health Educ J. 2004;63(1):61–9.CrossRef
79.
Challen A, Noden P, West A, Machin S. UK Resilience Programme evaluation: interim report (research report DCSF-RR094). London: Department for Children, Schools and Families; 2009.
80.
Challen A, Noden P, West A, Machin S. UK Resilience Programme: final report. London: Department for Education; 2011.
81.
Stathi A, Sebire SJ. A process evaluation of an outreach physical activity program in an inner-city primary school. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8 Suppl 2:S239–S48.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Audrey S, Holliday J, Parry Langdon N, Campbell R. Meeting the challenges of implementing process evaluation within randomized controlled trials: the example of ASSIST (A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial). Health Educ Res. 2006;21:366–77.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Implementing health promotion programmes in schools: a realist systematic review of research and experience in the United Kingdom
Authors
M. Pearson
R. Chilton
K. Wyatt
C. Abraham
T. Ford
HB Woods
R. Anderson
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0338-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue

Methodology

Developing standards for reporting implementation studies of complex interventions (StaRI): a systematic review and e-Delphi

Study protocol

Advancing implementation science through measure development and evaluation: a study protocol

Research

Perceptions of national guidelines and their (non) implementation in mental healthcare: a deductive and inductive content analysis

Study protocol

A stepped strategy that aims at the nationwide implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme in major gynaecological surgery: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Research

Leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI): a randomized mixed method pilot study of a leadership and organization development intervention for evidence-based practice implementation

Study protocol

Accuracy of using automated methods for detecting adverse events from electronic health record data: a research protocol