BACKGROUND: Two primary school-based interventions were implemented, aimed at increasing fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption by children, both with proven effectiveness: (1) a free daily F&V distribution scheme for all primary school children and (2) a multicomponent, age-specific program consisting of a classroom curriculum, parental involvement, and an environmental component. This article describes and compares the implementation, evaluation, and potential for adoption of the 2 interventions. METHODS: A total of 48 teachers who worked with either of these programs filled out a questionnaire at the end of the intervention period. Additionally, 24 of the teachers who worked with the multicomponent program filled out periodic monitoring reports during the intervention. RESULTS: Compared to the F&V distribution, the multicomponent program was less fully implemented and that implementation of activities decreased over time. Both programs were evaluated favorably, and about half of the teachers indicated that they were willing to use the program again in the following school year. Teachers who used the multicomponent program experienced more social pressure to implement the program. They rated the program they had used as more complex and risky than the other group rated the distribution program. CONCLUSIONS: The free distribution program has the greatest potential for being adopted by schoolteachers, but that efforts must be made to acquire funding for it. Until these resources are available, the multicomponent program seems to be a good alternative if improved as suggested.
BACKGROUND: Two primary school-based interventions were implemented, aimed at increasing fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption by children, both with proven effectiveness: (1) a free daily F&V distribution scheme for all primary school children and (2) a multicomponent, age-specific program consisting of a classroom curriculum, parental involvement, and an environmental component. This article describes and compares the implementation, evaluation, and potential for adoption of the 2 interventions. METHODS: A total of 48 teachers who worked with either of these programs filled out a questionnaire at the end of the intervention period. Additionally, 24 of the teachers who worked with the multicomponent program filled out periodic monitoring reports during the intervention. RESULTS: Compared to the F&V distribution, the multicomponent program was less fully implemented and that implementation of activities decreased over time. Both programs were evaluated favorably, and about half of the teachers indicated that they were willing to use the program again in the following school year. Teachers who used the multicomponent program experienced more social pressure to implement the program. They rated the program they had used as more complex and risky than the other group rated the distribution program. CONCLUSIONS: The free distribution program has the greatest potential for being adopted by schoolteachers, but that efforts must be made to acquire funding for it. Until these resources are available, the multicomponent program seems to be a good alternative if improved as suggested.
Authors: Leah Frerichs; Jeri Brittin; Dina Sorensen; Matthew J Trowbridge; Amy L Yaroch; Mohammad Siahpush; Melissa Tibbits; Terry T-K Huang Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Rikke Krølner; Thea Suldrup Jørgensen; Anne Kristine Aarestrup; Anne Hjøllund Christiansen; Anne Maj Christensen; Pernille Due Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Carine Vereecken; Hilde van Houte; Veerle Martens; Isabelle Wittebroodt; Lea Maes Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 3.390