4.5 Article

Evaluation of implementation of a healthy food and drink supply strategy throughout the whole school environment in Queensland state schools, Australia

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 66, 期 10, 页码 1124-1129

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2012.108

关键词

schools; food supply; environment; evaluation; Australia; obesity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: This paper reports on the evaluation of the Smart Choices healthy food and drink supply strategy for Queensland schools (Smart Choices) implementation across the whole school environment in state government primary and secondary schools in Queensland, Australia. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Three concurrent surveys using different methods for each group of stakeholders that targeted all 1275 school Principals, all 1258 Parent and Citizens' Associations (P&Cs) and a random sample of 526 tuckshop convenors throughout Queensland. Nine hundred and seventy-three Principals, 598 P&Cs and 513 tuckshop convenors participated with response rates of 78%, 48% and 98%, respectively. RESULTS: Nearly all Principals (97%), P&Cs (99%) and tuckshop convenors (97%) reported that their school tuckshop had implemented Smart Choices. The majority of Principals and P&Cs reported implementation, respectively, in: school breakfast programs (98 and 92%); vending machine stock (94 and 83%); vending machine advertising (85 and 84%); school events (87 and 88%); school sporting events (81 and 80%); sponsorship and advertising (93 and 84%); fundraising events (80 and 84%); and sporting clubs (73 and 75%). Implementation in curriculum activities, classroom rewards and class parties was reported, respectively, by 97%, 86% and 75% of Principals. Respondents also reported very high levels of understanding of Smart Choices and engagement of the school community. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that food supply interventions to promote nutrition across all domains of the school environment can be implemented successfully.

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

4.5
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