Advertisement

Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 315–326 | Cite as

RE-AIM analysis of a randomized school-based nutrition intervention among fourth-grade classrooms in California

  • Andrew L. LarsenEmail author
  • Trina Robertson
  • Genevieve Dunton
Original Research

Abstract

Childhood overweight and obesity are major health problems. School-based programs enable intervening with large groups of children, but program overall health impact is rarely completely assessed. A RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) analysis tested the overall public health impact of the fourth-grade “Nutrition Pathfinders” school-based nutrition-education program. A randomized controlled trial in 47 fourth-grade California classrooms (1713 students) tested program efficacy, and a secondary analysis of archival data tested program dissemination. Desired effects were seen in child nutrition knowledge, attitudes, consumption of low-nutrient high-density foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, proteins, grains, and parent willingness to serve new foods. The program was disseminated to ∼25 % of public school fourth-grade classrooms in California and cost about $1.00 per student to implement. The Nutrition Pathfinders program demonstrates potential for moderate to high public health impact due to its wide dissemination, effectiveness in altering attitudes and behaviors, and its relatively inexpensive cost of implementation.

Keywords

Child nutrition Nutrition knowledge Obesity RE-AIM Self-efficacy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This study was funded by the Dairy Council of California and the American Cancer Society (118283-MRSGT-10-012-01-CPPB).

Conflict of interest

Andrew Larsen and Genevieve Dunton were supported by the Dairy Council of California for conducting analyses and writing the report. Trina Robertson is employed by the Dairy Council of California.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Written informed assent was obtained from all minors. A passive parental consent procedure was used. The minor was approached for assent if the parent did not decline consent.

References

  1. 1.
    Flegal KM, Graubard BI, Williamson DF, et al. Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. JAMA. 2005; 293: 1861-1867. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.15.1861.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Withrow D, Alter DA. The economic burden of obesity worldwide: a systematic review of the direct costs of obesity. Obes Rev. 2011; 12: 131-141. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00712.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alisi A, Manco M, Panera N, et al. Association between type two diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in youth. Ann Hepatol. 2009; 8: S44-S50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bridger T. Childhood obesity and cardiovascular disease. Paediatr Child Health. 2009; 14: 177-182.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freedman DS, Mei Z, Srinivasan SR, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors and excess adiposity among overweight children and adolescents: the Bogalusa Heart Study. J Pediatr. 2007; 150: 12-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.08.042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singh AS, Mulder C, Twisk JW, et al. Tracking of childhood overweight into adulthood: a systematic review of the literature. Obes Rev. 2008; 9: 474-488. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00475.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, et al. Prevalence of obesity and trends in body mass index among US children and adolescents, 1999–2010. JAMA. 2012; 307: 483-490. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Han JC, Lawlor DA, Kimm SYS. Childhood obesity—2010: progress and challenges. Lancet. 2010; 375: 1737-1748. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60171-7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McKenna ML. Policy options to support healthy eating in schools. Can J Public Health. 2010; 101: S14-S17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peterson KE, Fox MK. Addressing the epidemic of childhood obesity through school-based interventions: what has been done and where do we go from here? J Law Med Ethics. 2007; 35: 113-130. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00116.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharma M. International school-based interventions for preventing obesity in children. Obes Rev. 2006; 8(2): 155-167. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00268.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Waters E, de Silva SA, Hall BJ, et al. Interventions for preventing obesity in children (review). Cochrane Collab. 2011; 12: 1-212.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kropski JA, Keckley PH, Jensen GL. School-based obesity prevention programs: an evidence-based review. Obesity. 2008; 16: 1009-1018. doi: 10.1038/oby.2008.29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katz DL, O”connell M, Njike VY, et al. Strategies for the prevention and control of obesity in the school setting: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Obes. 2008; 32: 1780-1789. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2008.158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gonzalez-Suarez C, Worley A, Grimmer-Somers K, et al. School-based interventions on childhood obesity: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 37: 418-427. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.07.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silveria JA, Taddei JA, Guerra PH, et al. Effectiveness of school-based nutrition education interventions to prevent and reduce excessive weight gain in children and adolescents: a systematic review. J Pediatr. 2011; 87: 382-392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sbruzzi G, Eibel B, Barbiero SM, et al. Educational interventions in childhood obesity: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Prev Med. 2013; 56: 254-264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kipping RR, Jago R, Lawlor DA. Developing parent involvement in a school-based child obesity prevention intervention: a qualitative study and process evaluation. J Public Health. 2012; 34: 236-244. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdr076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Lippevelde W, Verloigne M, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. Does parental involvement make a difference in school-based nutrition and physical activity interventions? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Public Health. 2012; 57: 673-678.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielsen SJ, Siega-Riz AM, Popkin BM. Trends in energy intake in US between 1977 and 1996: similar shifts seen across age groups. Obes Res. 2002; 10: 370-378. doi: 10.1038/oby.2002.51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    BreakfastFirst. Data and research; state and local data. Available at http://breakfastfirst.org/ data-research/state-local-data/. Accessibility verified Janurary 30th, 2015.
  22. 22.
    Vogt TM, Hollis JF, Lichtenstein E, et al. The medical care system and prevention: the need for a new paradigm. HMO Pract Group. 1998; 12: 5-13.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abrams DB, Orleans CT, Niaura RS, et al. Integrating individual and public health perspectives for treatment of tobacco dependence under managed health care: a combined stepped-care and matching model. Ann Behav Med. 1996; 18: 290-304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abelson RP. A variance explanation paradox: when a little is a lot. Psychol Bull. 1985; 97: 129-133. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.97.1.129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89: 1322-1327. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Glasgow RE, McKay HG, Piette JD, et al. The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: what can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management? Patient Educ Couns. 2001; 44: 119-127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, et al. Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Educ Res. 2006; 21: 688-694. doi: 10.1093/her/cyl081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Authors blinded. Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the statewide dissemination of a school-based physical activity and nutrition curriculum: “Exercise Your Options.” Am J Health Promot. 2009; 23: 229–232.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Authors blinded. School-based obesity prevention programs. In: Global View on Childhood Obesity: Current Status, Consequences and Prevention. (Bagchi, D [editor]). Elsevier/Academic Press, 2010. Pp. 319-331.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Authors blinded. State-wide dissemination of a school-based nutrition education programme: a RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) analysis. Public Health Nutr. 2012: 1-9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ Behav. 1984; 11: 1-47. doi: 10.1177/109019818401100101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenstock IM. Why people use health services. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966; 44: 94-127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav. 2004; 31: 143-164. doi: 10.1177/1090198104263660.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ; 1986.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    California Department of Education. Common core state standards. Version current March 2013. Internet: http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/. Accessed April 16, 2014.
  36. 36.
    CDC. National health education standards adolescent and school health. Version current February 2013. Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/sher/standards/. Accessed April 16, 2014.
  37. 37.
    Penkilo M, George GC, Hoelscher DM. Reproducibility of the school-based nutrition monitoring questionnaire among fourth-grade students in Texas. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2008; 40: 20-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2007.04.375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thiagarajah K, Fly AD, Hoelscher DM, et al. Validating the food behavior questions from the elementary school SPAN questionnaire. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2008; 40: 305-310. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2007.07.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Authors blinded. Four dietary items of the School Physical Activity and Nutrition (SPAN) Questionnaire form a robust latent variable measuring healthy eating patterns. JNEB. (In press).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Authors blinded. Nutrition self-efficacy is unidirectionally related to outcome expectations in children. Appetite. 2015;84;166-170. doi:  10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.013 DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.013#doilink
  41. 41.
    Pentz MA, Trebow EA, Hansen WB, et al. Effects of program implementation on adolescent drug use behavior the Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP). Eval Rev. 1990; 14: 264-289. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9001400303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    De Bourdeaudhuji I, Van Cauwenberghe E, Spittaels H, et al. School-based interventions promoting both physical activity and health eating in Europe: a systematic review within the HOPE project. Obes Rev. 2011; 12: 205-216. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00711.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Evans CE, Christian MS, Cleghorn CL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based interventions to improve daily fruit and vegetable intake in children aged 5 to 12 y. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012; 96: 889-901. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.030270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Van Lippevelde W, Van Stralen M, Verloigne M, et al. Mediating effets of home-related factors on fat intake from snacks in a school-based nutrition intervention among adolescents. Health Educ Res. 2012; 27: 36-45. doi: 10.1093/her/cyr110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Estabrooks P, Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE, et al. Reporting of validity from school health promotion studies published in 12 leading journals, 1996–2000. J Sch Health. 2003; 73: 21-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2003.tb06554.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. 2013; 103: e38-346. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301299.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Karimi-Shahanjarini A, Rashidian A, Omidvar N, et al. Assessing and comparing the short-term effects of TPB only and TPB plus implementation intentions interventions on snacking behavior in Iranian adolescent girls: a cluster randomized trial. Am J Health Promot. 2013; 27: 152-161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Verbeken S, Braet C, Goossens L, et al. Executive function training with game elements for obese children: a novel treatment to enhance self-regulatory abilities for weight-control. Behav Res Ther. 2013; 51: 290-299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kamath CC, Vickers KS, Ehrlich A, et al. Behavioral interventions to prevent childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized trials. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008; 93: 4606-4615. doi: 10.1210/jc.2006-2411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Michie S, Prestwich A. Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychol. 2010; 29: 1-8. doi: 10.1037/a0016939.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Collins CE, Watson J, Burrows T. Measuring dietary intake in children and adolescents in the context of overweight and obesity. Int J Obes. 2010; 34: 1103-1115. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2009.241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Livingstone MBE, Robson PJ, Wallace JMW. Issues in dietary intake assessment of children and adolescents. Br J Nutr. 2004; 92: S213-S222. doi: 10.1079/BJN20041169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew L. Larsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Trina Robertson
    • 2
  • Genevieve Dunton
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Dairy Council of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.School of Preventive MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations