Jennifer F Lucarelli1, Katherine Alaimo2, Elaine S Belansky3, Ellen Mang2, Richard Miles4, Deanne K Kelleher2, Deborah Bailey5, Nicholas B Drzal6, Hui Liu2. 1. Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA lucarell@oakland.edu. 2. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. 3. Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Seminole County Public Schools, Sanford, FL, USA. 5. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA. 6. Michigan Department of Education, School Nutrition Programs Unit, Lansing, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 mandated written school wellness policies. Little evidence exists to evaluate the impact of such policies. This study assessed the quality (comprehensiveness of topics addressed and strength of wording) of wellness policies and the agreement between written district-level policies and school-reported nutrition policies and practices in 48 low-income Michigan school districts participating in the School Nutrition Advances Kids study. METHOD: Written wellness policy quality was assessed using the School Wellness Policy Evaluation Tool. School nutrition policies and practices were assessed using the School Environment and Policy Survey. Analysis of variance determined differences in policy quality, and Fisher's exact test examined agreement between written policies and school-reported practices. RESULTS: Written wellness policies contained ambiguous language and addressed few practices, indicating low comprehensiveness and strength. Most districts adopted model wellness policy templates without modification, and the template used was the primary determinant of policy quality. Written wellness policies often did not reflect school-reported nutrition policies and practices. CONCLUSIONS: School health advocates should avoid assumptions that written wellness policies accurately reflect school practices. Encouraging policy template customization and stronger, more specific language may enhance wellness policy quality, ensure consistency between policy and practice, and enhance implementation of school nutrition initiatives.
BACKGROUND: The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 mandated written school wellness policies. Little evidence exists to evaluate the impact of such policies. This study assessed the quality (comprehensiveness of topics addressed and strength of wording) of wellness policies and the agreement between written district-level policies and school-reported nutrition policies and practices in 48 low-income Michigan school districts participating in the School Nutrition Advances Kids study. METHOD: Written wellness policy quality was assessed using the School Wellness Policy Evaluation Tool. School nutrition policies and practices were assessed using the School Environment and Policy Survey. Analysis of variance determined differences in policy quality, and Fisher's exact test examined agreement between written policies and school-reported practices. RESULTS: Written wellness policies contained ambiguous language and addressed few practices, indicating low comprehensiveness and strength. Most districts adopted model wellness policy templates without modification, and the template used was the primary determinant of policy quality. Written wellness policies often did not reflect school-reported nutrition policies and practices. CONCLUSIONS: School health advocates should avoid assumptions that written wellness policies accurately reflect school practices. Encouraging policy template customization and stronger, more specific language may enhance wellness policy quality, ensure consistency between policy and practice, and enhance implementation of school nutrition initiatives.
Authors: Nancy E Hood; Natalie Colabianchi; Yvonne M Terry-McElrath; Patrick M O'Malley; Lloyd D Johnston Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Marlene B Schwartz; Kathryn E Henderson; Jennifer Falbe; Sarah A Novak; Christopher M Wharton; Michael W Long; Meghan L O'Connell; Susan S Fiore Journal: J Sch Health Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.118
Authors: Jeannette R Ickovics; Kathleen O'Connor Duffany; Fatma M Shebl; Sue M Peters; Margaret A Read; Kathryn R Gilstad-Hayden; Marlene B Schwartz Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Brittany R Schuler; Brit I Saksvig; Joy Nduka; Susannah Beckerman; Lea Jaspers; Maureen M Black; Erin R Hager Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2018-01-18
Authors: Tanya M Horacek; Marlei Simon; Elif Dede Yildirim; Adrienne A White; Karla P Shelnutt; Kristin Riggsbee; Melissa D Olfert; Jesse Stabile Morrell; Anne E Mathews; Wenjun Zhou; Tandalayo Kidd; Kendra Kattelmann; Geoffrey Greene; Lisa Franzen-Castle; Sarah Colby; Carol Byrd-Bredbenner; Onikia Brown Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.390