Implementing a free school-based fruit and vegetable programme: barriers and facilitators experienced by pupils, teachers and produce suppliers in the Boost study

BMC Public Health

Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen¹  Pernille Due¹  Alexandra Evans²  Thea Suldrup Jørgensen¹  Rikke Krølner¹  Anne Kristine Aarestrup¹ 

[1] Centre for Intervention Research in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Øster Farimagsgade 5A 2nd floor, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark;Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Austin Regional Campus, 1616 Guadalupe, Suite 6.300, Austin, TX 78701, USA

关键词: Adolescents;    Intervention;    School;    Fruit and vegetables;    Process evaluation;    Implementation;   

Others  :  1145361
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-146

 received in 2013-08-31, accepted in 2014-01-29,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Multi-component interventions which combine educational and environmental strategies appear to be most effective in increasing fruit and vegetable (FV) intake in adolescents. However, multi-component interventions are complex to implement and often poorly implemented. Identification of barriers and facilitators for implementation is warranted to improve future interventions.

This study aimed to explore implementation of two intervention components which addressed availability and accessibility of FV in the multi-component, school-based Boost study which targeted FV intake among Danish 13-year-olds and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementation among pupils, teachers and FV suppliers.

Methods

We conducted focus group interviews with 111 13-year-olds and 13 teachers, completed class observations at six schools, and conducted telephone interviews with all involved FV suppliers. Interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed using qualitative analytical procedures.

Results

FV suppliers affected the implementation of the FV programme at schools and thereby pupils’ intake through their timing of delivery and through the quality, quantity and variety of the delivered FV. Teachers influenced the accessibility and appearance of FV by deciding if and when the pupils could eat FV and whether FV were cut up. Different aspects of time acted as barriers for teachers’ implementation of the FV programme: time spent on having a FV break during lessons, time needed to prepare FV and time spent on pupils’ misbehaviour and not being able to handle getting FV. Teacher timing of cutting up and serving FV could turn into a barrier for pupils FV intake due to enzymatic browning. The appearance of FV was important for pupils’ intake, especially for girls. FV that did not appeal to the pupils e.g. had turned brown after being cut up were thrown around as a part of a game by the pupils, especially boys. Girls appreciated the social dimension of eating FV together to a larger extent than boys.

Conclusions

Limited time and pupils’ misbehaviour were barriers for teachers’ implementation. Establishing FV delivery to schools as a new routine challenged FV suppliers’ implementation. Food aesthetics were important for most pupils’ FV intake while the social dimension of eating FV together seemed more important to girls than boys.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11666034.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Aarestrup et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bazzano LA: The high cost of not consuming fruits and vegetables. J Am Diet Assoc 2006, 106:1364-1368.
• [2]Hung HC, Joshipura KJ, Jiang R, Hu FB, Hunter D, Smith-Warner SA, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Spiegelman D, Willett WC: Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of major chronic disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004, 96:1577-1584.
• [3]Yngve A, Wolf A, Poortvliet E, Elmadfa I, Brug J, Ehrenblad B, Franchini B, Haraldsdottir J, Krolner R, Maes L, et al.: Fruit and vegetable intake in a sample of 11-year-old children in 9 European countries: The Pro Children Cross-sectional Survey. Ann Nutr Metab 2005, 49:236-245.
• [4]Vereecken CA, De Henauw S, Maes L: Adolescents' food habits: results of the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children survey. Br J Nutr 2005, 94:423-431.
• [5]French SA, Stables G: Environmental interventions to promote vegetable and fruit consumption among youth in school settings. Prev Med 2003, 37:593-610.
• [6]Knai C, Pomerleau J, Lock K, McKee M: Getting children to eat more fruit and vegetables: a systematic review. Prev Med 2006, 42:85-95.
• [7]Blanchette L, Brug J: Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among 6-12-year-old children and effective interventions to increase consumption. J Hum Nutr Diet 2005, 18:431-443.
• [8]Hoelscher DM, Evans A, Parcel GS, Kelder SH: Designing effective nutrition interventions for adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc 2002, 102:S52-S63.
• [9]Pomerleau J, Lock K, Knai C, McKee M: Effectiveness of interventions and programmes promoting fruit and vegetable intake. 2005.
• [10]Durlak JA, DuPre EP: Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol 2008, 41:327-350.
• [11]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, 18:237-256.
• [12]Wind M, Bjelland M, Perez-Rodrigo C, te Velde SJ, Hildonen C, Bere E, Klepp KI, Brug J: Appreciation and implementation of a school-based intervention are associated with changes in fruit and vegetable intake in 10- to 13-year old schoolchildren-the Pro Children study. Health Educ Res 2008, 23:997-1007.
• [13]Reinaerts E, de Nooijer J, Candel M, de Vries N: Increasing children's fruit and vegetable consumption: distribution or a multicomponent programme? Public Health Nutr 2007, 10:939-947.
• [14]Lytle LA, Murray DM, Perry CL, Story M, Birnbaum AS, Kubik MY, Varnell S: School-based approaches to affect adolescents' diets: results from the TEENS study. Health Educ Behav 2004, 31:270-287.
• [15]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, 15:459-465.
• [16]Linnan L, Steckler A: Process evaluation for public health interventions and research: an overview. In Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. 1st edition. Edited by Steckler A, Linnan L. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002:1-29.
• [17]Patton M: Qualitative research and evaluation methods. California: Sage publications; 2002.
• [18]Merriam SB: Qualitative research. A guide to design and implementation. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009.
• [19]Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD: Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ 2009, 339:b3496.
• [20]Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J: Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ 2006, 332:413-416.
• [21]Glenton C, Lewin S, Scheel IB: Still too little qualitative research to shed light on results from reviews of effectiveness trials: a case study of a Cochrane review on the use of lay health workers. Implement Sci 2011, 6:53. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Hearn M, Baranowski T, Baranowski J, Doyle C, Smith M, Lin L: Environmental influences on dietary behavior among children: availability and accessibility of fruits and vegetables enable consumption. J Health Educ 1998, 29:26-32.
• [23]Krølner R, Rasmussen M, Brug J, Klepp KI, Wind M, Due P: Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: a review of the literature. Part II: qualitative studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011, 8:112. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Rasmussen M, Krølner R, Klepp KI, Lytle L, Brug J, Bere E, Due P: Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: a review of the literature. Part I: Quantitative studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2006, 3:22. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Bai Y, Feldman C, Wunderlich SM, Aletras SC: Process Evaluation of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Implementation in a New Jersey Elementary School. J of Child Nut & Management 2011, 35:1.
• [26]Bouck MS, St Onge R, He M, Beynon C, Lemieux S, Khoshaba L, Stewart S: Northern Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: a process evaluation. Can J Diet Pract Res 2011, 72:14-22.
• [27]Potter SC, Schneider D, Coyle KK, May G, Robin L, Seymour J: What works? Process evaluation of a school-based fruit and vegetable distribution program in Mississippi. J Sch Health 2011, 81:202-211.
• [28]Nathan N, Wolfenden L, Butler M, Bell AC, Wyse R, Campbell E, Milat AJ, Wiggers J: Vegetable and fruit breaks in Australian primary schools: prevalence, attitudes, barriers and implementation strategies. Health Educ Res 2011, 26:722-731.
• [29]Lee H, Contento IR, Koch P: Using a systematic conceptual model for a process evaluation of a middle school obesity risk-reduction nutrition curriculum intervention: choice, control & change. J Nutr Educ Behav 2013, 45:126-136.
• [30]The ministry of children and education: Facts about the primary and lower secondary levels of education cover the public school system (the Folkeskole) and private schools. 2013. http://eng.uvm.dk/Fact-Sheets/Primary-and-lower-secondary-education webcite
• [31]Krølner R, Suldrup Jørgensen T, Aarestrup AK, Hjøllund CA, Christensen AM, Due P: The Boost study: design of a school- and community-based randomised trial to promote fruit and vegetable consumption among teenagers. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:191. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Bartholomew LK: Planning health promotion programs: an intervention mapping approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.
• [33]Lien N, Bjelland M, Bergh IH, Grydeland M, Anderssen SA, Ommundsen Y, Andersen LF, Henriksen HB, Randby JS, Klepp KI: Design of a 20-month comprehensive, multicomponent school-based randomised trial to promote healthy weight development among 11-13 year olds: The HEalth In Adolescents study. Scand J Public Health 2010, 38:38-51.
• [34]Klepp KI, Perez-Rodrigo C, de B I, Due PP, Elmadfa I, Haraldsdottir J, Konig J, Sjostrom M, Thorsdottir I, de Almeida MD V, et al.: Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption among European schoolchildren: rationale, conceptualization and design of the pro children project. Ann Nutr Metab 2005, 49:212-220.
• [35]Perez-Rodrigo C, Wind M, Hildonen C, Bjelland M, Aranceta J, Klepp KI, Brug J: The pro children intervention: applying the intervention mapping protocol to develop a school-based fruit and vegetable promotion programme. Ann Nutr Metab 2005, 49:267-277.
• [36]Baranowski T, Stables G: Process evaluations of the 5-a-day projects. Health Educ Behav 2000, 27:157-166.
• [37]Finch H, Lewis J: Focus groups. In Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. Edited by Ritchie J, Lewis J. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 2003:170-198.
• [38]Peterson-Sweeney K: The use of focus groups in pediatric and adolescent research. J Pediatr Health Care 2005, 19:104-110.
• [39]Tjørnhøj-Thomsen T, Whyte SR: Fieldwork and participant observation. In Research Methods in Public Health. Edited by Vallgårda S, Koch L. København: Gyldendal Akademisk; 2012:91-120.
• [40]Linnet JT: Money Can't Buy Me Hygge. Danish Middle-Class Consumption, Egalitarianism, and the Sanctity of Inner Space. Soc Analysis 2011, 55:21-44.
• [41]Buston K, Wight D, Hart G, Scott S: Implementation of a teacher-delivered sex education programme: obstacles and facilitating factors. Health Educ Res 2002, 17:59-72.
• [42]Cho H, Nadow MZ: Understanding barriers to implementing quality lunch and nutrition education. J Community Health 2004, 29:421-435.
• [43]Easthope C, Easthope G: Intensification, Extension and Complexity of Teachers' Workload. Brit J Sociol Educ 2000, 21:43-58.
• [44]Rogers EM: Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 2003.
• [45]Sy A, Glanz K: Factors influencing teachers' implementation of an innovative tobacco prevention curriculum for multiethnic youth: Project SPLASH. J Sch Health 2008, 78:264-273.
• [46]Bickman L: The functions of program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation 1987, 1987:5-18.
• [47]Jansen E, Mulkens S, Jansen A: How to promote fruit consumption in children. Visual appeal versus restriction. Appetite 2010, 54:599-602.
• [48]Carlsen HB: Fra Kants æstetik til madens æstetik. [From Kants aesthetics to food aesthetics]. In Mad og æstetik. [Food and aesthetics]. 1st edition. København: Hans Reitzels forlag; 2011:19-41.
• [49]Frisby D, Featherstone M (Eds): Simmel on culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 1997.
• [50]Mäkelä J: Meals: the social perspective. In Meals in science and practice. Interdisciplinary research and business applications. Edited by Meiselman HL. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2009.
• [51]Ross S: 'Do I really have to eat that?': A qualitative study of schoolchildren's food choices and preferences. Health Educ J 1995, 54:312-321.
• [52]Vereecken C, Ojala K, Jordan MD, et al.: Eating habits. In Young people's health in context: international report from the HBSC 2001/02 survey. Edited by Currie C, Roberts C, Morgan A, Smith R, Settertobulte W, Samdal O. Copenhagen: WHO regional office for Europe; 2004:110-119.
• [53]Vereecken C: Section 3: Health behaviours. Eating behaviour: Fruit consumption. In Inequalities in young people's health. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children international report from the 2005/2006 survey. Edited by Currie C, Gabhainn SN, Godeau E, Roberts C, Smith R, Currie D. Copenhagen: WHO regional office for Europe; 2008:89-92.
• [54]Conley-Tyler M: A fundamental choice: internal or external evaluation? EJA 2012, 4:3-11.
• [55]Rosseau N, McColl E, Eccles M, Hall L: Qualitative methods in implementation research. In Changing Professional Practice. Theory and Practice of Clinical Guidelines Implementation. Edited by Thorsen T, Mäkelä M. Randers: Formprint; 1999:99-115.