2017
DOI: 10.1017/s1368980016003487
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The provision of healthy food in a school tuck shop: does it influence primary-school students’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards healthy eating?

Abstract: A single intervention such as having a nutritionally regulated tuck shop at a primary school cannot advance the healthy school food environment in its totality. A multi-pronged approach is recommended and awareness must be created among all role players, including parents who are responsible for preparing lunchboxes.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
17
0
5

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
17
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The most common method used to measure the school food environment was a self-administered questionnaire/survey (n = 21) [28,36,39,40,[42][43][44][45]47,48,[51][52][53][54]56,58,59,62,64,66,68] to obtain information such as food policy, food purchased or availability from tuck shops or school meals, presence of a tuck shop, if nutrition training was a priority or attitudes to nutrition from either school principals, students, educators or canteen managers. Disadvantages with this method include self-reported bias in favor of desirable rather than actual practice, a low response rate which may not be indicative of true food provision and respondent burden.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The most common method used to measure the school food environment was a self-administered questionnaire/survey (n = 21) [28,36,39,40,[42][43][44][45]47,48,[51][52][53][54]56,58,59,62,64,66,68] to obtain information such as food policy, food purchased or availability from tuck shops or school meals, presence of a tuck shop, if nutrition training was a priority or attitudes to nutrition from either school principals, students, educators or canteen managers. Disadvantages with this method include self-reported bias in favor of desirable rather than actual practice, a low response rate which may not be indicative of true food provision and respondent burden.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Five articles included a mixed methods approach where quantitative data was integrated with qualitative data, to provide comprehensive insight into the school food environment [28,37,39,40,42] and one study conducted a mixture of methods study [64]. Bevans and colleagues [39] and Ardzejewska et al [37] used semi-structured interviews with food service managers/school principals/deputies where their school's nutrition service policies and practices were explored, together with either student questionnaires [40] or canteen menu audits [37].…”
Section: Mixed Methods and Mixture Of Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations