Evaluating the impact of the National Healthy School Standard: using national datasets

Abstract

An evaluation of the National Healthy School Standard (NHSS) was undertaken by the authors on behalf of the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. One part of the evaluation involved gaining access to a number of datasets derived from previous research and analysing the health-related outcomes of schools which had attained Level 3 of the NHSS, compared with those of other schools. The sources which provided the most interesting findings were the Health-Related Behaviour Questionnaire (HRBQ) survey and the Ofsted database of school inspection ratings. This paper describes the statistical methods used, and the results of the HRBQ and Ofsted analyses. Using HRBQ data, many pupil-level outcomes were explored, but relatively few indicated significant differences and even those tended to be quite small. The Ofsted school-level data yielded stronger evidence of NHSS impact. The paper concludes by suggesting possible reasons for these findings.

Can policy ameliorate socioeconomic inequities in obesity and obesity‐related behaviours? A systematic review of the impact of universal policies on adults and children

“…Of these seven studies, four were rated as moderate and three as weak. Similarly, five policies negatively impacted health equity , and for all except one , similar policies had neutral or even positive impacts on inequities in other studies. Of the five studies that found negative impacts, two were rated as strong, one was moderate and two were weak.…”

“…Ten studies evaluated policies that were fully agentic or had agentic components (Tables and ). The UK 5 a day fruit and vegetable social marketing campaign had a positive impact on inequities , whereas school‐based counselling and educational initiatives negatively impacted inequities in some studies but had no impact in others . Counselling and educational interventions in other contexts (i.e.…”

“…Many of the agentic policies were studied alongside other policies that had a structural component; thus, the independent impact of agentic policies on inequities was unclear. However, of the four stand‐alone agentic policies, one had a positive impact on inequities , two had neutral impacts , while one had a negative impact, and it alone received a weak quality rating .…”

“…Thus, it was difficult to distinguish the impact of agentic policies from concurrently implemented policies with a structural component. Notably, of these four stand‐alone agentic policies, the impacts of two were neutral , one was positive and one was negative , however, the latter study was rated as weak. Thus, we tentatively offer that the impact of agentic policies appears to be neutral in most cases, while we more confidently assert that at minimum; any negative impacts of agentic policies may be ameliorated through concurrent implementation of more structurally oriented policies.…”

The experiences of young people with obesity in secondary school: some implications for the healthy school agenda

“…In England, a National Healthy School Standard was first introduced in 1999, with the aim of promoting social inclusion, reducing inequalities and raising educational achievement (Schagen et al . 2005).…”