Effective elements of school health promotion across behavioral domains: a systematic review of reviews

Abstract

Background: Most school health education programs focus on a single behavioral domain. Integrative programs that address multiple behaviors may be more efficient, but only if the elements of change are similar for these behaviors. The objective of this study was to examine which effective elements of school health education are similar across three particular behavioral domains.

School-based interventions on physical inactivity as a risk factor of chronic diseases of lifestyle: A review

“…Thus, the implementation of health education or intervention programmes in the school setting is an important component of disease prevention. However, Peters et al, (2009), underscored that behavioural change does not necessarily flow from improved knowledge about risk factors for CDL, as is evident in the increased health risk behaviours among youth (Reddy et al, 2010). In the South African setting, the Youth Risk Behaviour Survey (YRBS) was conducted in 2002 and 2008.…”

Implementation strategy for the school-based sex education program Long Live Love

“…Several studies revealed that there is an implementation problem among teachers but teachers themselves do not perceive this sub-optimal implementation behavior as a problem (Bessems et al, 2014;Peters et al, 2009;Dusenbury et al, 2003;Dusenbury, Brannigan, Hansen, Walsh, & Falco, 2005;Martens, Van Assema, Paulussen, Schaalma, & Brug, 2006). In the case of LLL, teachers did not deliver lessons completely and according to the goals of program designers but teachers did not perceive this behavior as problematic or as a necessity to effectively provide the lessons.…”

“…The effect of these programs on the health of the youth is, besides the quality of the program itself, also dependent on the quality of implementation. The reach and implementation of school-based health promotion programs is, however, not optimal (Bessems, van Assema, de Vries, & Paulussen, 2014;Peters, Kok, Ten Dam, Buijs, & Paulussen, 2009;Schutte et al, 2014;Forman et al, 2009). Figure 1 shows the implementation process of school-based programs when program developers do not intervene in the process; only 70% of the target population is aware of the program, 50% decide to use it (adoption), 30% actually use it (implementation), and a small 10% continues to use the program in the long-run (continuation) (Paulussen, Kok, Schaalma, & Parcel, 1995;Paulussen, Kok, & Schaalma, 1994).…”

“…Teachers describe their implementation behavior as making a selection of program components, adjusting the program with their own additions, not delivering the program in its entirety, limited use of the teacher manual and a lack of planning, preparation and evaluation. This suboptimal implementation behavior may lead to reduced program effectiveness (Bessems et al, 2014;Peters et al, 2009 An inability to adequately deal with these difficulties can negatively interfere with optimal implementation of SRH programs. According to the respondents, teachers providing SRH lessons may encounter the following difficulties: (1) Barriers to creating a safe and trusted atmosphere in the classroom (2) Feelings of shame or a closed attitude towards sexuality (3) Dealing with personal questions asked to them or to other students (4) Coping with individual student problems related to SRH (5) Dealing with homo negative reactions and behavior of students in the classroom (6) Anticipating on negative events on social media and internet among students in relation to SRH (7) Providing SRH lessons in a culturally-, gender-and sexually divers classroom.…”

“…In school-based sexual health promotion, teachers are the key players for the implementation of these programs. Their implementation is, however, often sub-optimal; Programs are not being implemented completely or with sufficient fidelity to produce measurable outcomes (Bessems et al, 2014;Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002;Hoekstra et al, 2009;Peters et al, 2009;Schutte et al, 2014). There is a need for greater attention to the quality of implementation and its related determinants, namely teachers' beliefs about the innovation and characteristics of the innovation, organisational factors and characteristics of the implementationenhancing intervention (Fagan & Mihalic, 2003;Paulussen et al, 1995;Schutte et al, 2014).…”