Implementing health promotion programmes in schools: A realist systematic review of research and experience in the United Kingdom

Implementation Science

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Pearson, M ^a   Chilton, R ^a   Wyatt, K ^a   Abraham, C ^a   Ford, T ^a   Woods, H B ^b   Anderson, R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Health promotion in schools; Implementation; Public health; Realist review

Indexed keywords

CHILD; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE; UNITED KINGDOM;

CHILD; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84945548076     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17485908     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-015-0338-6     Document Type: Review

References (82)

1. WHO. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Geneva: WHO; 1986.
2. World Health Organization. Promoting health through schools: report of a WHO expert committee on comprehensive school health and education. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1997.
3. Bonell C, Humphrey N, Fletcher A, Moore L, Anderson R, Campbell R. Why schools should promote students' health and wellbeing. BMJ. 2014;348:g3078. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3078.
4. Deschesnes M, Martin C, Hill AJ. Comprehensive approaches to school health promotion: how to achieve broader implementation. Health Promot Int. 2003;18(4):387-96.
5. Samdal O, Rowling L. Theoretical and empirical base for implementation components of health-promoting schools. Health Educ. 2011;111(5):367-90.
6. Parsons C, Stears D, Thomas C. The health promoting school in Europe: conceptualising and evaluating the change. Health Educ J. 1996;55(3):311-21.
7. St Leger LH. The opportunities and effectiveness of the health promoting primary school in improving child health - a review of the claims and evidence. Health Educ Res. 1999;14(1):51-69.
8. Keshavarz N, Nutbeam D, Rowling L, Khavarpour F. Schools as social complex adaptive systems: a new way to understand the challenges of introducing the health promoting schools concept. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1467-74.
9. Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E et al. The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014;2014(4 Art. No. CD008958). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008958.pub2.
10. Bonell C, Wells H, Harden A, Jamal F, Fletcher A, Thomas J, et al. The effect on student health of interventions modifying the school environment: systematic review. J Epidemiol Community. 2013;67:677-81.
11. Jamal F, Fletcher A, Harden A, Wells H, Thomas J, Bonell C. The school environment and student health: a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative research. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:798.
12. Gugglberger L, Inchley J. Phases of health promotion implementation into the Scottish school system. Health Promot Int. 2012;29(2):256-66.
13. Hall WJ, Zeveloff A, Steckler A, Schneider M, Thompson D, Pham T, et al. Process evaluation results from the HEALTHY physical education intervention. Health Educ Res. 2012;27(2):307-18.
14. Bartholomew L, Parcel G, Kok G, Gottlieb N, Fernandez M. Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.
15. Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M, Hansen WB. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Educ Res. 2003;18(2):237-56.
16. Ozer EJ. Contextual effects in school-based violence prevention programs: a conceptual framework and empirical review. J Prim Prev. 2006;27(3):315-40.
17. Anderson R. New MRC guidance on evaluating complex intervention: clarifying what interventions work by researching how and why they are effective. Br Med J. 2008;337:a1937.
18. Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage Publications; 2006.
19. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review: a new method of systematic review for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2005;10(S1):21-34.
20. Kellogg Foundation WK. Logic model development guide. Battle Creek: W.K. Kellogg Foundation; 2004.
21. Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. London: MRC; 2014.
22. Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. London: Verso; 2008.
23. Sayer A. Realism and social science. London: Sage; 2000.
24. Pawson R, Owen L, Wong G. The Today Programme's contribution to evidence-based policy. Evaluation. 2010;16(2):211-3.
25. Berwick DM. The science of improvement. JAMA. 2008;299(10):1182-4.
26. Schulz R, Czaja SJ, McKay JR, Ory MG, Belle SH. Intervention Taxonomy (ITAX): describing essential features of interventions. Am J Health Behav. 2010;34(6):811-21.
27. Pearson M, Chilton R, Woods HB, Wyatt K, Ford T, Abraham C, et al. Implementing health promotion in schools: protocol for a realist systematic review of research and experience in the United Kingdom. Syst Rev. 2012;1:48.
28. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:21.
29. Ritzer G. Meta-theorizing in Sociology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1991.
30. Roen K, Arai L, Roberts H, Popay J. Extending systematic reviews to include evidence on implementation: methodological work on a review of community-based initiatives to prevent injuries. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:1060-71.
31. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2014.
32. Greenberg MT, Domitrovich CE, Gracyk PA, Zins JE. The study of implementation in school-based preventive interventions: theory, research and practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2005.
33. Adelman HS, Taylor L. Toward a scale-up model for replicating new approaches to schooling. J Educ Psychol Consult. 1997;8(2):197-230.
34. Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Hansen WB, Walsh J, Falco M. Quality of implementation: developing measures crucial to understanding the diffusion of preventive interventions. Health Educ J. 2005;20(3):308-13.
35. Wallace A, Croucher K, Quilgars D, Baldwin S. Meeting the challenge: developing systematic reviewing in social policy. Policy and Politics. 2004;32(4):455-70.
36. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. London: Sage Publications; 1988.
37. Pawson R. Digging for nuggets: how 'bad' research can yield 'good' evidence (Realis Synthesis - Supplementary reading 6). 2006. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/realistsynthesis/supreadings.htm. Accessed 18 September 2015.
38. Pawson R. Does Megan's Law work? A theory-driven systematic review (Realist Synthesis - Supplementary reading 7). 2006. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/realistsynthesis/supreadings.htm. Accessed 18 September 2015.
39. Lanham HJ, Leykum LK, Taylor BS, McCannon CJ, Lindberg C, Lester RT. How complexity science can inform scale-up and spread in health care: understanding the role of self-organization in variation across local contexts. Soc Sci Med. 2013;93:194-202.
40. University of Bristol. DECIPHer-ASSIST: reducing teenage smoking though a cost-effective prevention programme (REF 2014 Impact case study). 2014. http://results.ref.ac.uk/Submissions/Impact/702. Accessed 18 September 2015.
41. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science. 2009;4:50.
42. Lowden K, Quinn J, Kirk S. Evaluation of the Active Primary School Pilot Programme: research report no.90. Edinburgh: Sport Scotland; 2004.
43. Sahota P, Rudolf MC, Dixey R, Hill AJ, Barth JH, Cade J, et al. Evaluation of implementation and effect of primary school based intervention to reduce risk factors for obesity. BMJ. 2001;323(7320):1027-9.
44. Audrey S, Cordall K, Moore L, Cohen D, Campbell R. The development and implementation of a peer-led intervention to prevent smoking among secondary school students using their established social networks. Health Educ J. 2004;63(3):266-84.
45. Audrey S, Holliday J, Campbell R. Commitment and compatibility: teachers' perspectives on the implementation of an effective school-based, peer-led smoking intervention. Health Educ J. 2008;67(2):74-90.
46. Audrey S, Holliday J, Campbell R. It's good to talk: adolescent perspectives of an informal, peer-led intervention to reduce smoking. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:320-34.
47. Holliday J, Audrey S, Moore L, Parry-Langdon N, Campbell R. High fidelity? How should we consider variations in the delivery of school-based health promotion interventions? Health Educ J. 2009;68(1):44-62.
48. Stead M, Stradling B, MacKintosh Anne M, MacNeil M, Minty S, Eadie D. Delivery of the Blueprint programme: report. Stirling: University of Stirling; 2007.
49. Stead M, Stradling R, MacNeil M, MacKintosh AM, Minty S, Stead M, et al. Implementation evaluation of the Blueprint multi-component drug prevention programme: fidelity of school component delivery. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2007;26(6):653-64.
50. Blueprint Evaluation Team. Blueprint drugs education: the response of pupils and parents to the programme. London: Home Office; 2007.
51. Frederick K, Barlow J. The Citizenship Safety Project: a pilot study. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(1):87-96.
52. Warren JM, Henry CJ, Lightowler HJ, Bradshaw SM, Perwaiz S, Warren JM, et al. Evaluation of a pilot school programme aimed at the prevention of obesity in children. Health Promot Int. 2003;18(4):287-96.
53. Newman R, Nutbeam D. Teachers' views of the Family Smoking Education Project. Health Educ J. 1989;48(1):9-13.
54. Lowden K, Powney J. An evolving sexual health education programme: from health workers to teachers. Glasgow: The Scottish Council for Research in Education; 1996.
55. Wyatt KM, Lloyd JJ, Creanor S, Logan S. The development, feasibility and acceptability of a school-based obesity prevention programme: results from three phases of piloting. BMJ Open. 2011;1:e000026.
56. Rothwell H, Segrott J. Preventing alcohol misuse in young people aged 9-11 years through promoting family communication: an exploratory evaluation of the Kids, Adults Together (KAT) Programme. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:810.
57. Stead M, MacKintosh AM, Eadie D, Hastings G. NE Choices: the results of a multi-component drug prevention programme for adolescents (DPAS paper no 14). London: Home Office; 2001.
58. Teeman D, Reed F, Bielby G, Scott E, Sims D. Evaluation of the PhunkyFoods Programme. Final report. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research; 2008.
59. Christian MS, Evans CE, Ransley JK, Greenwood DC, Thomas JD, Cade JE. Process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based fruit and vegetable intervention: Project Tomato. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(3):459-65.
60. Forrest S, Strange V, Ann O. A comparison of students' evaluations of a peer-delivered sex education programme and teacher-led provision. Sex Educ. 2002;2(3):195-214.
61. Strange V, Forrest S, Oakley A. Peer-led sex education - characteristics of peer educators and their perceptions of the impact on them of participation in a peer education programme. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(3):327-37.
62. Strange V, Forrest S, Oakley A. What influences peer-led sex education in the classroom? A view from the peer educators. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(3):339-49.
63. Oakley A, Strange V, Stephenson J, Forrest S, Moneiro H. Evaluating processes: a case study of a randomized controlled trial of sex education. Evaluation. 2004;10(4):440-62.
64. Stephenson JM, Strange V, Forrest S, Oakley A, Copas A, Allen E, et al. Pupil-led sex education in England (RIPPLE study): cluster-randomised intervention trial. Lancet. 2004;364(9431):338-46.
65. Strange V, Allen E, Oakley A, Bonell C, Johnson A, Stephenson J. Integrating process with outcome data in a randomized controlled trial of sex education. Evaluation. 2006;12(3):330-52.
66. Stathi A, Nordin S, Riddoch C. Evaluation of the 'Schools on the Move' project. London: Middlesex University; 2006.
67. Wight D, Buston K, Henderson M. The SHARE project: a rigorous evaluation of teacher-led sex education. Sex Education Matters. 1998;16:10-1.
68. Wight D, Abraham C. From psycho-social theory to sustainable classroom practice: developing a research-based teacher-delivered sex education programme. Health Educ Res. 2000;15:25-38.
69. Buston K, Hart G. Heterosexism and homophobia in Scottish school sex education: exploring the nature of the problem. J Adolesc. 2001;24:95-109.
70. Buston K, Wight D, Scott S. Difficulty and diversity: the context and practice of sex education. Brit J Sociol Educ. 2001;22(3):353-268.
71. Buston K, Wight D, Hart G, Scott S, Buston K, Wight D, et al. Implementation of a teacher-delivered sex education programme: obstacles and facilitating factors. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(1):59-72.
72. Buston K, Wight D, Hart G. Inside the sex education classroom: the importance of class context in engaging pupils. Cult Health Sex. 2002;4(3):317-35.
73. Buston K, Wight D. The salience and utility of school sex education to young women. Sex Educ. 2002;2(3):233-50.
74. Wight D, Raab G, Henderson M, Abraham C, Buston K, Hart G, et al. The limits of teacher-delivered sex education: interim behavioural outcomes from a randomised trial. Br Med J. 2002;324:1430-3.
75. Wight D, Buston K. Meeting needs but not changing goals: evaluation of inservice teacher training for sex education. Oxford Rev Educ. 2003;29(4):521-43.
76. Buston K, Wight D. Pupils' participation in sex education lessons: understanding variation across classes. Sex Educ. 2004;4(3):285-301.
77. Newman R, Smith C, Nutbeam D. Teachers' views of the 'Smoking And Me' project. Health Educ J. 1991;50(3):107-10.
78. Crosswaite C, Tooby J, Cyster R. SPICED: evaluation of a drug education project in Kirklees primary schools... Schools Partnership in Children's Education on Drugs. Health Educ J. 2004;63(1):61-9.
79. Challen A, Noden P, West A, Machin S. UK Resilience Programme evaluation: interim report (research report DCSF-RR094). London: Department for Children, Schools and Families; 2009.
80. Challen A, Noden P, West A, Machin S. UK Resilience Programme: final report. London: Department for Education; 2011.
81. Stathi A, Sebire SJ. A process evaluation of an outreach physical activity program in an inner-city primary school. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8 Suppl 2:S239-S48.
82. Audrey S, Holliday J, Parry Langdon N, Campbell R. Meeting the challenges of implementing process evaluation within randomized controlled trials: the example of ASSIST (A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial). Health Educ Res. 2006;21:366-77.