Health promoting schools: lessons from working intersectorally with primary schools in Australia

Williams, Paul D.; Weston, Ros; McWhirter, Jenny; James, Erica; Moore, Deborah; Coulter, Bernie; Titheridge, Cheryl; Halverson, J. A.; Potter, Jane

doi:10.1177/001789699605500305

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This has also been reported in other health promoting school projects and may reflect a preference for schools to be action oriented. 16 Those interventions that did have an impact on the development of plans tended to take a much more hands on approach, for example by conducting planning days within the school and giving concrete strategies for It is recommended that health promoting school interventions work with school communities to develop their capacity to plan for health, including assisting school staff to use simple, school-focused planning tools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised trial of an intervention to develop health promoting schools in Australia: the south western Sydney study

Mitchell

Palmér²,

Booth³

et al. 2000

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the evaluation of a health promoting schools intervention carried out in the south western region of Sydney, Australia. The evaluation sought to assess the project's impact on structures to support the health promoting school concept and changes in health–related policies and practices within 22 local schools. METHODS: A randomised controlled study was employed. Intervention schools were offered seminars and training in the health promoting schools concept, encouraged to use a resource kit to help them establish their school as health promoting and invited to participate in a support network. Pre– and post measures of awareness, school structures and policies and practices to support the development of a health promoting school were taken and intervention and control schools compared. RESULTS: There was an increased level of awareness of the health promoting school concept among intervention schools. However, there were no significant changes in health–related policies and practices at the school level, among both intervention and control schools. CONCLUSIONS: A longer time frame and more structured support are required to influence school structures to support the development of a health promoting school. IMPLICATIONS: To facilitate organisational change in schools, health promoting school interventions need to provide structured support for schools and recognise that change takes time. A committee to initiate action, a plan to guide work and school support are likely to facilitate the adoption of the health promoting schools approach. Further work to refine the measurement of school–based action and its outcome and the development of indicators for a health promoting school is needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised trial of an intervention to develop health promoting schools in Australia: the south western Sydney study

Mitchell

Palmér²,

Booth³

et al. 2000

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Schools projects in Australian have been identified. These included the identification of key priorities based on local community need, the engagement of schools, and the development of customised strategies that complement their core activities (26). Schools involved in this project were all initially highly motivated to implement strategies to increase the frequency of breakfast consumption because of the belief by school staff that breakfast consumption was associated with higher cognitive performance and improved classroom behaviour.…”

Section: Key Factors In the Success Of Health Promotingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Queensland School Breakfast Project: a health promoting schools approach

Radcliffe¹,

Ogden²,

Welsh

et al. 2005

Nutrition &Amp; Dietetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine the efficacy of a breakfast promotion intervention based on Health Promoting Schools processes. Design: Schools were recruited and randomly allocated into intervention (seven schools) or control (six schools) groups. Intervention schools formed working groups, discussed their specific breakfast issues, and developed, implemented and evaluated their action plans. The students completed a survey on breakfast eating habits and knowledge at baseline (February‐April 2002) and at follow up (November‐December 2002). Subjects: 792 seventh grade students (11–12 years) (n = 341 for the control group; n = 451 for the intervention group). The response rate for completion of the follow up survey was 95% for the intervention group and 96% for the control group. Setting: Thirteen schools, including 12 government and one independent school, with seven located in metropolitan, four in rural and two in remote areas of southern Queensland. Main outcome measures: Proportion of children reporting they usually skip breakfast one or more days per school week; Consumption of selected breakfast food items, including energy‐dense, micronutrient‐poor food or beverage choices; Selection of perceived ‘healthy breakfast meals’ from a list provided. Statistical analyses: Frequencies of responses and cross tabulations were calculated using SPSS version 11.0. Results: Breakfast skipping increased by a greater percentage in the control group compared to the intervention group (20.2% vs 4.5%). The proportion of children reporting that they ate at least one ‘poor food choice’ for breakfast on the day of the survey decreased from 16.4% to 14.8% for the intervention group, while this rate more than doubled (9.7% to 19.9%) for the control group. Conclusion or application: Use of the Health Promoting Schools approach to address the quality of breakfast consumption by upper primary school children is recommended as an effective methodology.

show abstract

“…Partnerships, including links with parents and community agencies, are also regarded as a key factor in enhancing health promotion in schools. 29,40 Involvement of outside agencies in this project facilitated access to expertise, programs and resources and added to the range of strategies implemented. Involving parents, however, proved to be more difficult.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moorefit – increasing physical activity in adolescent girls using the Health Promoting Schools framework

Cass¹,

Price²

2003

Health Promot J Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issue addressed: Physical activity levels in girls are known to decline from puberty onwards, with long-term adverse health implications. This project addressed the issue of physical inactivity in one girls' government high school with a population of more than 800 students from mainly non-English speaking backgrounds. Methods:The project used the results of a thorough needs assessment and strong partnerships to develop strategies to increase students' physical activity within the Health Promoting Schools framework. Strategies covered the curriculum, the physical, social and organisational environments of the school and partnerships, including links with parents and community agencies.Results: Evaluation used quantitative and qualitative methods. At post, a significantly higher percentage of the intervention group compared with a historical control group was moderately (adequately) active and a lower percentage was inadequately active (χ 2 =14.8, p<0.01). Changes in participation occurred during school hours. Rates of participation in many of the non-competitive activities introduced by the project increased. Conclusions:This study showed that physical activity levels of adolescent girls could be favourably influenced within the school setting. So what?Since adequate physical activity can have a positive preventive impact on a variety of lifestyle diseases, a project to increase physical activity levels among female adolescents could be expected to have long-term benefits. Why adolescent girls?Studies have shown that women are generally less physically active than men; the level of physical activity starts to decline as girls reach puberty and continues to do so throughout adolescence. 6,7 The 1997 New South Wales (NSW) Schools Fitness and Physical Activity Survey 8 found adolescent girls to be less physically active, less fit and to have poorer motor skills than boys. Factors that appear to contribute to this are socioeconomic status, attitudes, social norms, self-efficacy for physical activity, peer and family support and access to facilities. 9,10 Women from non-English speaking backgrounds were found to be less likely than women from English-speaking backgrounds to play sport. 11 Since health behaviours adopted in childhood and adolescence are carried into adulthood, 12 a project to increase physical activity levels among adolescent girls could be expected to have long-term benefits. 3

show abstract

Health promoting schools: lessons from working intersectorally with primary schools in Australia

Cited by 14 publications

References 4 publications

A randomised trial of an intervention to develop health promoting schools in Australia: the south western Sydney study

A randomised trial of an intervention to develop health promoting schools in Australia: the south western Sydney study

The Queensland School Breakfast Project: a health promoting schools approach

Moorefit – increasing physical activity in adolescent girls using the Health Promoting Schools framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About