4.1 Article

Not Enough Time in the Day: A Qualitative Assessment of In-School Physical Activity Policy as Viewed by Administrators, Teachers, and Students

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH
卷 87, 期 1, 页码 21-28

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/josh.12464

关键词

Whole School; Whole Community; Whole Child model; rural; school health; physical activity; health policy; child and adolescent health

资金

  1. Active Living Research, Research Translation Award Round 2 (RWJF) [67132]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, the alignment of health and education has been at the forefront of school reform. Whereas the establishment of national in-school physical activity (ISPA) recommendations and state-level mandates demonstrates success, there has been less achievement in areas that address health disparities. The purpose of this investigation was to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing state-mandated ISPA policies in the Mississippi Delta. METHODS: Focus groups or interviews were conducted with district administrators, school principals, teachers, and students. A total of 2 semistructured moderator guides were developed to focus on (1) student ISPA practices and preferences and (2) facilitators and barriers to implementing ISPA policies and practices. RESULTS: A total of 6 themes were developed. In that, 2 themes addressed participant-described barriers (primary challenges and interferences and excuses). Three themes highlighted participant-described facilitators (compromises, things that work, and being active at school). Finally, 1 theme encompassed the participant-described need to address educating the whole child. CONCLUSIONS: There is a critical need for meaningful and relevant solutions to circumvent challenges to implementing ISPA policies and practices in the Mississippi Delta. The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child model offers a broad means of visualizing rural, low-income, racially concentrated schools to circumvent challenges and foster ISPA policies and practices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据