Effectiveness of health promoting schools: A comparative health profile assessment of higher as compared to low accredited schools in Chandigarh, Union Territory of North India.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and classify all private and government schools located in a northern city of India for accreditation as health promoting schools and comparative health profile assessment of selected higher accredited schools with lower accredited and non-accredited schools.
DESIGN: Quasi experimental study with pre and post assessment with comparison of higher with lower accredited schools. SETTINGS: The current study was conducted in 206 schools of Chandigarh City of Northern India. Comparative health profile assessment was undertaken in 8 schools with 754 children from higher accredited (platinum, gold, silver) and 8 schools with 700 children from lower accredited (bronze) and non-accredited (below bronze) schools.
INTERVENTIONS: Multicomponent and multilevel intervention was undertaken with self-quality improvement by schools with help of a manual of accreditation of school as health promoting schools. Key intervention included capacity building, technical visits, supportive supervision, sensitization of policymakers and key stakeholders, implementation of policy initiatives, use of social media, technical support and monitoring of activities. OUTCOMES: Accreditation levels (bronze, silver, gold and platinum levels) as health promoting schools after pre and post intervention.
RESULTS: Out of 206 schools, 203 participated in the baseline assessment and 204 in the endline assessment. The response rate was 99%. Two schools which refused participation were excluded and not assessed. Schools (N = 17) which participated in the 2011-2013 study were excluded from analysis. There was a statistically difference (p = 0.01) in the improvement of accreditation level of the baseline and endline assessment after intervention(p<0.05). Overall, the proportion of schools at the gold level increased from 1(0.5%) in 2016 to 71(38%). Silver level from 9(5%) to 57 (31%) of schools after intervention. The response rate in health profile assessment in higher(8) and lower(8) accredited schools was 95.9% and 92.7% respectively. The health profile of children higher accreditation level schools (N = 754) were found better in hygiene practices protective factors (peer support at school, parental or guardian supervision), handling stress and less prone to injury as compared to lower accreditation level schools (N = 700),(p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The health promoting school programme was found to be feasible and effective and lead to significant improvement in accreditation level as compared to baseline assessment after continuous self-quality improvement by schools(p<0.05). The health profile of children studying in higher accredited schools was better as compared to lower accredited schools.

Introduction

The health of children and adolescents is of supreme importance to the growth and development of any country. Along with the family, the school is one of the main settings in which individual and social development of children occur [1]. The interaction between school teachers and students provides a unique opportunity for health promotion that can be sustained and reinforced over time [2]. Hence, school is an appropriate setting to improve youth health.

The “Health Promoting School” (HPS) is a holistic approach to integrate health promotion within the community. HPS approach was inspired by the Ottawa Charter [3]. The concept of ‘Health Promoting Schools’ was adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1995, as part of a settings-based approach to health improvement. In Europe, North America, and the Western Pacific region, there have been significant developments in the promotion of children’s health involving schools [4]. The Schools for Health in Europe network (SHE network) was introduced by the WHO for the European region with the Council of Europe and the European Commission [5].

Accreditation is a public recognition of the achievement of required standards by an organization [6]. It certifies the schools for their efforts in implementing health promotion initiatives following an assessment, further helping them in redeveloping and implementing effective HPS strategies. In India, a pilot study for accreditation of schools as ‘Health promoting schools’ was undertaken in Chandigarh in which a checklist and scoring indicators were developed in 17 schools and was found to be feasible with active participation of WHO, Health Department of Chandigarh, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt of India, ICMR and Quality Council of India in 2010–11 [2]. Four categories of accreditation were developed namely, platinum, gold, silver, and bronze in the pilot study (Fig 1) [2].

Fig 1

Health promoting schools accreditation standards.

The current study was conducted to assess and classify all private and government schools located in a northern city of India for accreditation as health promoting schools and comparative health profile assessment of selected higher accredited (platinum, gold, silver) schools with lower (bronze) and non-accredited (below bronze) schools.

Materials and methods

Settings and study design

A quasi-experimental study with pre-test and post-test design was conducted in 206 schools (public and private) in Chandigarh Union Territory of Northern India from September 2016 till May 2019 to evaluate the accreditation of schools as health promoting schools focusing on multicomponent and multilevel interventions before and after the intervention. All schools located in Chandigarh city were invited for participation by promoting voluntary participation and active involvement which was critical for the implementation of the interventions.

Intervention

Interventions included self-quality improvements with the help of manual for accreditation of schools as HPS, sensitization of policymakers and key stakeholders, capacity building of the schools, technical visits, supportive supervision to schools, implementation of policy initiatives, use of social media, technical support and monitoring of activities.

Manual

Manual developed in an earlier pilot study (2011–2013) was reviewed and accreditation checklist consisted of eight domains: (Healthy School Environment, Mechanism for promoting health in schools, School health services, School nutrition services, Physical Education, School counseling, psychological and social services, Community partnership, Implementation of Shala Siddhi and mentoring schools in becoming HPS). The cut-off level of scores for bronze, silver, gold, and platinum levels were used as 100–120, 121–150, 151–200 and >200 points, respectively, as per the standards developed in the previous study (Fig 1) [2].

Key school-based interventions

Interventions for a period of 1 year (2017–2018) included zone wise division of all schools of the Chandigarh into three zones consisting of approximately 70 schools each: East, South and Central for providing technical support. After distribution of feedback reports on baseline assessment by zone coordinators to the schools; social media groups of respective zones were created.

Orientation and reorientation workshops for principals and teachers, convergence with other National health programs like Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram(RBSK)/Rashtriya Kishor Swasthya Karyakram(RKSK), school health program, mid-day meal and implementation of policy initiatives was done. Investigators coordinated with schools for mentoring of other schools; higher accredited schools on the basis of baseline assessment were encouraged to help lower accredited schools for which means of communication (exchange of contact details) was established between them. Investigators and key stakeholders also visited 10% of the schools for monitoring and supervision.

Schools those were categorized as gold and silver were classified as higher accredited schools and those classified as bronze and below bronze were classified as lower accredited schools. The above-mentioned categorization was decided in an expert group meeting considering the baseline results and comparison of basic characteristics (student teacher ratio, toilet ratios, water consumption person per day). For comparison between higher accredited and lower accredited schools, a sample size of 1400 was calculated by considering difference in prevalence of anemia among rural and urban school going children (14.16% vs 25.4%) with power of 80% and a design effect of 1.5 [5]. A multistage random sampling was performed. The first stage consisted of random selection of 8 schools from the higher (4 government and 4 private) and lower (4 government and 4 private) accredited the schools. Letters of invitation were sent to each selected school. In the second stage, we randomly selected one section of classes (7 and 8) from each selected school with an inclusion criterion of a student studying in the school for the last two years. In Chandigarh, one section of a class is comprised of 40 to 50 students and there are 4–5 sections of a particular class.

The health profile assessment was undertaken by GSHS questionnaire based on the adapted Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Indian version of questionnaire [7] of 2007 with a focus on modules on diet, physical activity, tobacco use, alcohol use, drug use, mental health, hygiene, protective factors, violence and unintentional injury and sexual behavior modules. Only those students were covered who were available in the school on the scheduled day after obtaining written parental consent and the child’s assent. The students were required to complete the questionnaires independently in 90 minutes (2 class periods).

Endline assessment was undertaken from October 2018–March 2019 onwards. Ethical permission for conduction of study was taken from the institutional ethics committee (PGI/IEC/2014/2217). The ranking of schools as HPS was released in a public function chaired by Education Secretary of UT Chandigarh making it the first state in India to do so in India.

Data analysis

The data collected was entered in excel spreadsheet and analyzed by using IBM SPSS Statistics for windows, version 20.0, NY, and Epi info version 7.1.5, Atlanta, GA. The effectiveness of accreditation system of HPS was analysed by comparing the accreditation level of school at baseline and endline after intervention and comparing health profile of children studying in higher as compared to lower accredited schools. Initially, the data was screened for missing and outliers. Descriptive statistics was used to describe the study demographics using frequencies (n), percentages (%), means, and standard deviation (SD). Chi-square was used to examine differences among variables. All statistical tests were two-sided and statistical significance was defined at the 5% alpha level.

Results

All schools in Chandigarh city (N = 206) were invited for participation in the study. Out of 206 schools, 203 participated in the baseline assessment and 204 in the endline assessment. Two schools which refused participation were excluded and not assessed as shown in the Fig 2. The response rate was 99%. Schools (N = 17) which participated in the 2011–2013 study were excluded from analysis [2]. Baseline characteristics of government schools (N = 113) and private schools (N = 74) were compared, and no major difference was found. Distribution of schools showed that there were more high schools (49%) as compared to senior secondary schools (32%) among government category (Table 1). Overall, there were more senior secondary schools as compared to other education levels in the private category. The median of toilet ratio for boys was 28.9(Inter Quartile Range (IQR) = 20–73) in the Government and 23 (16–39) in the private schools in 2018 (Table 1).

Fig 2

Participating schools flow diagram.

Table 1

Distribution and key characteristics of Government and Private Schools in Chandigarh (2016–2018).

Category	Government (N = 113)*	Private (N = 74)
	n (%)	n(%)
Education levels
Senior Secondary	37(32.7)	43(58.1)
High	55(49.1)	12(16.2)
Middle	13(11.6)	9(12.1)
Primary	8(7.1)	10(13.5)
Characteristics Median(IQR)
Girls	530(305–820)	424(192–707)
Boys	588(336–880)	559(226–920)
Water consumption person per day	17(11–23.9)	16(10–32.1)
Toilet ratio-Boys	28.9(20–7)	23(16–39)
Toilet ratio-Girls	41.5(26.6–56)	30(18–42)
Student tap ratio	52(38.6–85.7)	50(36.9–79.7)

*One new Govt school was functional in 2018. Figures in parenthesis are percentages.

Table 2 depicted that one hundred fifty-two (82%) schools were below bronze level during the baseline assessment but after intervention the schools in the same level reduced to 25(13%) i.e., 16(14%) government and 9(12%) private schools respectively which was found to be significant(p = 0.01). The proportion of schools acquiring silver accreditation increased from 9(5%) to 57 (31%) of schools (p = 0.01). Overall, the proportion of schools at the gold level increased from 1(0.5%) in 2016 to 71(38%) in 2018 which was found to be significant (p<0.05).

Table 2

Comparison of accreditation levels of Government and Private Schools in Chandigarh after one year of intervention (2016–2018).

	Pre Intervention			Post Intervention
CategoryLevel	Government schools (N = 112)n (%)	Private schools (N = 74)n (%)	Total(N = 186)n (%)	Government schools (N = 113)n (%)	Private schools (N = 74)n (%)	Total(N = 187)n (%)	% age Change	P value
Platinum	0	0	0	0	2(2.74)	2(1.1)	+1.1	-
Gold	0	1(1.3)	1(0.5)	39(34.5)	32(43.8)	71(38.1)	+37.6	0.01*
Silver	5(4.4)	4(5.4)	9(4.8)	39(34.5)	18(24.6)	57(30.6)	+25.8	0.01
Bronze	15(13.3)	9(12.2)	24(12.9)	19(16.8)	13(17.8)	32(17.2)	+4.3	0.32
Below bronze	92(82.1)	60(81.1)	152(81.7)	16(14.1)	9(12.1)	25(13.3)	-68.4	0.01

*pvalue, X2.

The proportion of schools with school safety, security and presence of evacuation plan increased from 54% in 2016 to 92.5% in 2018 (Table 3). The presence of a School Health Committee (SHC) had significantly improved from 72% of schools in 2016, compared with 95.7% of schools in 2018(p = 0.02). Training for the HPS program in schools increased from 61% in 2016 to 89% in 2018(p = 0.01). The monitoring of canteens in schools for ensuring quality improved from 68% in 2016 to 99% in 2018 (P = 0.02). All schools included in the study were found to have appropriate playground facilities except 5 Government schools and 2 private schools. The designated hours each week assigned for physical activity (PT period) of 45 minutes per day for all days (minimum 5 days) increased to 96% compared to 90% in 2016 (Table 3).

Table 3

Comparison of government and private Schools as per different domains of accreditation as Health Promoting Schools in Chandigarh after intervention (score >3***).

Domains		2016			2018			P value
		Schools (N = 186)			Schools (187)
I. Healthy School Environment		Govt (N = 112) n(%)	Private (N = 74) n(%)	Total n(%)	Govt (N = 113) n(%)	Private (N = 74) n(%)	Total (N = 187)
1	Access to clean drinking water, clean toilets and adequate lighting**	102(91.0)	67(90.5)	169(94.9)	107(95.5)	72(98.6)	179(95.7)	0.91
2	Sufficient dustbins for refuse disposal	109(97.3)	72(97.2)	181(97.9)	112(99.1)	73(99.9)	185(99.5)	0.95
3	School safety, security and presence of evacuation plan for which everyone is trained	57(50.8)	42 (56.7)	99(53.5)	106(93.8)	66(90.4)	172(92.5)	0.51
II. Mechanism for promoting health and awareness about Health Promotion in schools
1	Presence of School Health Committee / related mechanism	98(87.5)	36 (48.6)	134(72.1)	109(96.4)	69(94.5)	178(95.7)	0.02
2	Knowledge and practices of personal hygiene	105(93.7)	69(93.2)	174(94.1)	112(99.1)	72(98.6)	184(98.9)	0.91
3	Presence of notice board/walls	94(83.9)	46 (62.1)	140(75.7)	108(95.6)	72(98.6)	180(96.8)	0.18
4	Presence of posters and / or other means of publicizing and popularizing concept of Health Promotion in school and local community	101(90.1)	53 (71.6)	154(83.2)	112(99.1)	70(95.9)	182(97.9)	0.44
5	Student awareness and understanding of Health promotion concept, objectives and strategies	98(87.5)	64 (86.4)	162(87.6)	112(99.1)	71(97.3)	181(97.9)	0.89
6	Training for Health Promotion Programmes	86(76.7)	26(35.1)	112(60.9)	100(88.5)	65(89.04)	165(88.7)	0.01
7	Presence of a coordinator/health incharge for the Health Promotion	103(91.9)	48(64.8)	151(81.2)	111(98.2)	67(91.8)	178(95.7)	0.26
8	Curriculum which emphasizes on health related subjects and being taught	105(93.7)	66(89.1)	171(91.9)	113(100)	71(97.3)	184(98.9)	0.99
9	Presence of sources and / or lectures on priority health subjects for students and staff	102 (91.0)	57 (77.0)	159(85.9)	108(95.6)	70(95.9)	178(95.7)	0.51
III. School Health Services
1	Presence of health cards	101(90.1)	45 (60.8)	146(78.5)	111(98.2)	67(91.8)	178(95.7)	0.19
2	Presence of first-aid kit	107 (95.5)	65 (87.8)	172(92.5)	109(96.5)	72(98.6)	181(97.3)	0.70
3	Training of students and staff on first aid	63 (56.2)	42 (56.8)	105(56.8)	81(71.7)	64(87.7)	145(77.9)	0.51
IV. School nutrition services
1	Nutrition education in school	98 (87.5)	71(95.9)	169(91.4)	112(99.1)	72(98.6)	184(98.9)	0.58
2	Monitoring canteens/meals in the schools	103 (91.9)	25 (33.7)	128(68.8)	110(97.3)	50(98.0)	160(99.4)	0.02
3	Option of healthy food and drinks	57 (50.8)	27 (36.4)	84(45.2)	71(62.8)	45(61.6)	116(95.9)	0.33
V. Physical education
1	A minimum number of hours of physical activity per week to all students in or outside the school curriculum	100(89.2)	67 (90.5)	167(89.8)	106(93.8)	72(98.6)	178(95.7)	0.95
VI. School counseling, psychological and social services
1	Presence of social programmes and counseling services	81(72.3)	40 (54.0)	121(65.05)	95(84.0)	60(82.2)	155(83.3)	0.33
2	Adolescent Education Programme services including life skill education	76 (67.8)	42 (56.7)	116(63.8)	106(93.8)	67(91.8)	173(93.0)	0.58
VII. Community Partnership
1	Community partners in decision-making and planning in the health promoting activities of the school	94(83.9)	49 (66.2)	143(76.9)	113(100)	67(91.8)	180(96.8)	0.58
VIII. Extent of implementation of School standards and evaluation framework (Shaala Siddhi) and involvement in establishing more Health Promoting Schools and their accreditation
1	Extent of implementation of SHAALA SIDDHI*** as per checklist	91(81.2)	6(8.1)	97(52.4)	101(89.4)	8(10.9)	109(90.2)	0.74
2	Promoting and Assisting in the accreditation of other schools (Applicable in Midline or End line assessment).	0	0	0	15(13.39)	9(12.3)	24(12.9)

** composite scoring of the parameters done as per HPS manual.

*** considered based on the previous published paper [2].

**** National Programme on School Standards and Evaluation by National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA), under the aegis of Union Ministry of Human Resource Development.

Health profile of students from 8 higher accreditation schools (gold, silver) were compared in the lower (bronze) and below bronze accreditation schools with 754 children from higher and 700 from lower accreditation levels were selected for further health assessment. The response rate in higher and lower accredited was 95.9% and 92.7% respectively. There was no significant difference between demographic characteristics and as per gender among higher and lower accredited schools (p = 0.14). Among all the participants, majority of the students were in the age group 11–13 years i.e., 83% and 81% among government and private schools respectively.

Hygiene practices were better among students of higher accredited schools as compared to students of lower accredited schools (Table 4). More than 87% and 92% students from higher accredited schools reported that they washed their hands before eating and after toileting respectively as compared to lower accredited schools(p = 0.04).

Table 4

Comparison of diet, physical activity and protective factors among school children in higher and lower accreditation schools in Chandigarh.

Results for students aged 11–16 years	Higher Accredited Schools			Lower Accredited School			p-value
	TotalN(754)n%	BoysN(399)n%	GirlsN(355)n%	TotalN(700)n%	BoysN(391)n%	GirlsN(309)n%
Dietary Behaviors and Overweight
Students who went hungry most of the time or always during the past 30 days	45(5.9%)	23(5.7%)	22(6.1%)	55(7.8%)	24(6.1%)	31(10.0%)	0.15
BMI
Students who were underweight (<-2SD from median for BMI by age and sex)	98(12.9%)	55(13.7%)	43(12.1%)	68(9.7%)	47(12.0%)	21(6.7%)	0.24
Students who were overweight (>+1SD from median for BMI by age and sex)	103(13.6%)	58(14.5%)	45(12.6%)	107(15.2%)	65(16.6%)	42(13.5%)	0.25
Students who were obese (>+2SD from median for BMI by age and sex)	40(5.3%)	25(6.2%)	15(4.2%)	53(7.5%)	32(8.1%)	21(6.7%)	0.96
Hygiene
Students who brushed their teeth 2 times per day	417(55.3%)	211(52.8%)	206(58.0%)	383(54.7%)	211(53.9%)	172(55.6%)	0.82
Students who always or most of time washed their hands before eating	658(87.2%)	352(88.2%)	306(86.1%)	585(83.5%)	329(84.1%)	256(82.8%)	0.04
Students who always or most of time washed their hands after using the toilet/latrine	701(92.9%)	372(92.4%)	329(91.8%)	630(90.0%)	356(91.0%)	274(88.6%)	0.04
Physical Activity
Students who were physically active for a total of at least 60 minutes per day on all 7 days during the past 7 days	497(66.1%)	259(65.0%)	238(67.0%)	475(67.8%)	261(66.9%)	214(69.4%)	0.44
Students who spent three or more hours per day sitting and watching or doing other sitting activities	109(14.4%)	57(14.3%)	52(14.6%)	117(16.7%)	74(18.9%)	43(13.9%)	0.24
Protective Factors
Students who missed classes or school without permission	168(22.2%)	76(19.0%)	92(25.9%)	155(22.1%)	87(22.2%)	68(22.0%)	0.88
Students who reported that most of the students in their school were never or rarely kind and helpful	280(37.2%)	148(37.1%)	132(37.2%)	310(44.4%)	166(42.4%)	144(46.9%)	0.01
students whose parents or guardians never or rarely really knew what they were doing with their free time	287(38.0%)	145(36.3%)	142(40%)	303(43.2%)	161(41.1%)	142(45.9%)	0.04

Protective factors including peer support at school, parental or guardian supervision were found to significantly better among students of higher accredited schools (p = 0.01, p = 0.04). In relation to parents’ or guardians’ monitoring, 62% students of higher accredited schools reported approved parental control for observation on their free-time activities (Table 4).

Table 5 showed that more than 63% students from higher accredited schools reported that they were taught to handle stress in healthy ways as compared to 55% children in lower accreditation level during school year (p = 0.01).

Table 5

Comparison of key behaviours of (tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse, violence) and mental health among school children in higher and lower accreditation schools in Chandigarh.

Results for students aged 11–16 years	Higher Accredited Schools			Lower Accredited Schools			Pvalue
	TotalN(754)n%	BoysN(399)n%	GirlsN(355)n%	TotalN(700)n%	BoysN(391)n%	GirlsN(309)n%
Tobacco Use
Students who smoked cigarettes on one or more days	16(2.1%)	7(1.7%)	9(2.5%)	16(2.2%)	5(1.2%)	11(3.5%)	0.83
Students who used any tobacco products other than cigarettes on one or more days	18(2.3%)	9(2.2%)	9(2.5%)	20(2.8%)	9(2.3%)	11(3.5%)	0.57
Students who reported people smoking in their presence on one or more days during the past 7 days	230(30.5%)	123(30.9%)	107(30.1%)	209(29.8%)	121(30.9%)	88(28.4%)	0.8
Mental health
Students who have been so worried about something that they wanted to use alcohol never or rarely alcohol or other drugs to feel better	724(96.0%)	383(95.9%)	341(96.0%)	668(95.4%)	370(95.1%)	298(96.7%)	0.76
Students who were taught in any of their classes how to handle stress in healthy ways during this school year	472(62.5%)	247(62.0%)	225(63.3%)	386(55.1%)	235(60.2%)	151(49.1%)	0.01
Violence And Unintentional Injury
students who were taught how to avoid being bullied in their classes	399(52.9%)	399(100%)	0(0%)	391(55.8%)	391(100%)	0(0%)	0.26
students who reported that they had serious injury happened to them	466(61.8%)	227(56.8%)	239(67.3%)	463(66.1%)	237(60.6%)	226(73.1%)	0.07
Alcohol Use Module
students who have been taught dangers of alcohol use in school year	327(43.3%)	174(43.6%)	153(43.0%)	326(46.5%)	188(48.0%)	138(44.6%)	0.19
students who reported that parents or guardians drink alcohol	153(20.2%)	75(18.7%)	78(21.9%)	114(16.2%)	70(17.9%)	44(14.3%)	0.05
Drugs Use Module
students during the past 12 months, how much times have they used drugs	23(3.0%)	10 (2.5%)	13(3.6%)	25(3.5%)	17(4.3%)	8(2.5%)	0.57
students during their school year, who taught in any of their classes the problems associated with using drugs	281(37.2%)	145(36.3%)	136(38.3%)	255(36.4%)	138(35.2%)	117(37.8%)	0.756
Sexual Behavior Module
Students who were taught in any of their classes about HIV infection or AIDS in school year	271(35.9%)	126(31.5%)	145(40.8%)	320(45.7%)	168(42.9%)	152(49.1%)	0.01
students who heard of HIV infections or AIDS	394(52.2%)	199(49.8%)	195(54.9%)	383(54.7%)	201(51.4%)	182(58.8%)	0.43
Students who were taught in any of their classes how to avoid HIV infection or AIDS in school year	251(33.2%)	123(30.8%)	128(36.0%)	251(35.8%)	134(34.2%)	117(37.8%)	0.29
Students whotalked about HIV infection or AIDS with their parents or guardians	168(22.2%)	70(17.5%)	98(27.6%)	159(22.7%)	72(18.4%)	87(28.1%)	0.83
students who reported that neatly looking person can be infected with HIV	174(23.0%)	86(21.5%)	88(24.7%)	213(30.4%)	120(30.6%)	93(30.0%)	0.01

The majority (66%) from lower accredited schools claimed they had serious injury happened to them in the past 12 months as compared to 62% higher accreditation level (p = 0.07) (Table 5).

About 20% students from higher accredited schools reported that parents or guardians drink alcohol as compared to 16% students from lower accredited schools(p = 0.05) (Table 5).

Students from lower accredited schools were more informed regarding HIV (36%) than those from higher accredited schools (46%). Similarly, it was found that students from lower accredited schools (30%) were more aware about HIV as compared to students from higher accredited schools (23%) (p = 0.01) (Table 5).

Discussion

Th current study is a pre-post multicomponent and multilevel health promotion school accreditation intervention study of both government and private secondary schools in northern India. The aim was to compare the higher accredited schools versus lower accredited schools for health profile assessment outcomes. The authors found an association between higher accreditation and intervention time period of year for both government and private schools (Table 2). The study showed an improvement in number of government and private schools in two of eight accreditation domains associated with the intervention (Table 3), higher hygiene levels and protective factors with higher accredited schools (Table 4), and mental health improvements but poorer sexual health awareness associated with higher accredited schools (Table 5).

School settings have long been advocated as an excellent health promoting settings. Studies have reported that evidence-based interventions in the school setting should be promoted as an important component for integrated programs, policies, and monitoring frameworks designed to reverse the childhood obesity in the region [8]. Global standards for HPS [9] has been launched recently which has also emphasized effectiveness of HPS. Present study is an effort to assess effectiveness of HPS in Indian settings. The accreditation scheme has been implemented only in Thailand in the Southeast Asia region. In India, Chandigarh has become the first city to have undergone accreditation of all schools as HPS by voluntary and continuous quality improvement process under different parameters. The competitive spirit was amply observed in the present study on achieving particular accreditation level and ambition to move to the next level was quite evident. There was significant improvement in accreditation level of schools as HPS by self-quality improvement with technical support from key stakeholders over a period of 1 year of the intervention.

Study conducted in Hong Kong found that students in HPSs had a more positive health behavior profile as compared to those in non-HPS [10]. A review evaluating nine studies of HPS emphasized that HPS has some influence on various domains of health for the school community [11]. Another study highlighted there is scope for integrating health promotion into school policies and the curriculum [12]. A multi-component model of nutrition and lifestyle education was found to be effective in improving the nutrition-related knowledge, lifestyle practices, and resulted in beneficial changes in anthropometric and biochemical profiles of the Asian Indian adolescents [13].

In the current study, it was observed that knowledge and practices of personal hygiene of students studying in higher accredited schools were better than students of lower accredited schools. A study reported that low awareness about personal hygiene were the key areas of concern and could be tackled by the active involvement of school teachers, bringing about improvement in personal hygiene of school children [14]. Personal hygiene, mental health have been identified as priority areas for HPS. Hence students of higher accredited schools in the present study were more attentive to their personal hygiene and were better equipped to handle stress in schools.

Our study demonstrated that Shaala Siddhi has been implemented in government schools as compared to private schools. Shaala Siddhi is a national programme on school standards and evaluation [15]. It is a school self-evaluation process in a sequential manner and particularly domains 1,5,6,7 i.e., enabling resources of the school, school leadership and management, inclusion, health and safety, and productive community participation are related to HPS.

Our study showed that community partnership in decision-making and planning in the health-promoting activities improved after one year of intervention in the current study. The HPS concept highlights community participation as integral to the success of health-promoting interventions. Studies have reported that ownership, leadership, and collaboration are critical to improving school health [14].

Students from lower accredited schools were more informed about sexual behaviour module. Most of the lower accredited schools were in the periphery area of the Chandigarh city, considered at higher risk for the prevalence of HIV which are covered under targeted interventions projects for HIV (TI project). Hence the extent of interventions on HIV might be more in these schools.

Schools are designated as settings that can help reduce inequalities in health through networking with other stakeholders [5]. Literature has suggested that HPS activities primarily focus on student health [16] and improvement in the health promoting behaviour of the students. It has also been reported that accreditation define dedication and acknowledge excellence; this may encourage schools to improve and become HPS which has been observed in the present study as well [16]. The current study found that HPS provided ground for better coordination between health and education department and other sectors.

Limitation of the study

Health profile assessment could not be performed for all included schools due to time and budget constraint. Comparation of accredited and non-accredited schools was not an objective of the project hence not presented in the current paper.

Conclusions

The accreditation system of schools as HPS was found to be feasible and effective as there was significant improvement in accreditation level after continuous self-quality improvement by schools and better health profile of children studying in higher accredited schools as compared to low accredited schools and should be promoted. assessment and classification of schools on accreditation levels in school settings is feasible and must be integrated into the school education system. Considering the results of the study assessment for accreditation of schools as HPS should be conducted on 3–5 years basis for comparative report and further improvement.

(XLS)

Click here for additional data file.

10 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-05043

Effectiveness of Health Promoting Schools: A Comparative Health Profile Assessment of higher as compared to low accredited Schools in Chandigarh,Union Territory of North India

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thakur,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers have identified a number of concerns regarding the presentation of your work, and have requested clarification of several important aspects of your methods. Please attend carefully to each of the points they have raised when preparing your revisions.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 23 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jamie Males

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”.

3. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "Ethical permission for conduction of study was taken from the institutional ethics committee."

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Study on Effectiveness of Health Promoting School (HPS) is very much needed. I commend the authors for the dedicated effort to gain new knowledge to evidence of HPS effectiveness. However, more work is needed for publication.

There should be more description of the accreditation of different levels of awards and the process of validation. Comparison of basic characteristics of schools with different levels of award and non-award schools should be performed to analyse any difference at baseline. Those would be confounding factors.

The authors need to jsutify the categorisation between higher accreditation schools (Gold and Silver- 1+9=10) amd lower accreditionschools (Bronze or below bronze-24+152=176). The standard below bronze would be variable and the scientific basis of putting bronze and below bronze in same category needs to be justified.

Health profile of students from 8 higher accredition schools with 754 students were compared with 700 students from lower acrreditation ? numbers of schools. There is no description of sampling methods and the rationale behind. There were 152 lower accreditiation schools and this reference group can have larger sample size. If all schools with award are categorised as accedition schools, there will be students from 34 schools comparing with students from 152 non-accredition schools, this would allow better analysis of effect size. The Hong Kong studies published ib 2006 and 2008 cited by the authors categories schools into award and non-award groups.

Apart from oberall analysisi of pre and post interventions, authors can conduct separate pre and post interventions among accreditation schools and non-accreditiation schools. For comparison of health profiles, those factors. showing statistical signifiance, most of them only demonstrated less than 10% difference and many only around 5%. Authors would consider re-analysis with bronze schools to be included under acceditiation schools comparing with non-accreditation schools. If data available, should include all students from those schools and it will give rise to much larger sample size.

Multiple logisitic regression can be considered to analyse the factor(s) including accreditation status together with other independent variables predicting particular health outcomes. This will allow controlling the confounding factors. Those components under different domains showing statistical difference from pre and post analysis would also be included as independent variables to analyse which component(s) is independent predictor for better health profile.

The authors should draw on more recent literature on HPS to strenghten the discussuon section. The speical issue of Health Promotion International on HPS in 2017 and other recent papers.

Reviewer #2: General Comments

This is a pre-post multicomponent and multilevel health promotion school accreditation intervention study of both government and private secondary schools in Northern India. The aim was to compare the higher accredited schools versus lower accredited schools for health profile assessment outcomes. The authors showed an association between higher accreditation levels and time period (table 2), increase in two of eight accreditation domains associated with the intervention (table 3), higher hygiene levels and protective factors with higher accredited schools (table 4), and mental health improvements but poorer sexual health awareness associated with higher accredited schools (table 5). To improve the manuscript readability, the paper needs to be edited for conciseness and follow a more structured approach. It is not necessary to quote percentage to 2 decimal places in Tables-1 decimal place is sufficient. Be consistent with number of decimal places for P values throughout manuscript.

Specific Comments

1. Title needs to be more informative. Possible suggestion “Association between health promotion school accreditation levels and health profile assessment over time in Northern India.” The use of effectiveness implies randomization.

2. Ethical statement. This need to be completed. Please specify name of ethics committee, reference number and date of approval. Also include these details in line 156.

3. Introduction. Lines 83 to 105. This is a long paragraph. Suggest paragraph break at line 93 to improve readability.

4. Consider a subheading ‘Intervention’ so it is clear what it is before line 116.

5. Line 121. Bolded ‘Manual’. Is this subheading or part of a sentence?

6. Line 128. Bolded ‘Key school-based intervention’. Is this subheading or part of a sentence?

7. Line 131. Social media does not need to be bolded.

8. Line 133. Bolded ‘Orientation and reorientation’ subheading or sentence?

9. Line 141. Bolded ‘The health profile assessment’ subheading or sentence?

10. Line 145-147. Specify exactly how schools were randomly selected.

11. Write out in full abbreviations ‘CBSE’ (line 149), indicate what SHAALA SIDDHI in Table 3 means with footnote.

12. Line 149 Include reference

13. Line 161. Specify version, company and city for SPSS and Epiinfo.

14. State significant level P<0.05 and 2-sided significance in data analysis.

15. Text in Results is too long. Much of it is repeating the information in the Tables. Consider adding a flow diagram of schools, like STROBE, to help reader understand the study design and data analysis.

16. Table 1. Median (IQR) for sex characteristics are not clear. Is this number of girls and boys in each school?

17. Table 2. Column for preintervention private school column does not add up to 100%. Consider conducting a Cochrane-Armitage test for trend for total pre and post intervention accreditation level, which would be significant to show that overall accreditation levels changed over time. %age change should be rewritten to Change with a footnote to indicate percentage; consider 95% CI around percentage change.

18. Table 3. Title Score �  3 is unclear to readers. Please explain.

19. Table 4. Check all P value, especially for BMI first row and third row, should this be marginally significant?

20. The discussion was not concise and structured. First paragraph should highlight main results as indicated in general comments above. Then following paragraphs should discussed each of the main results in sequence with Table order in comparison with other published studies. There should be a study limitation paragraph.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Professor Albert Lee

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Jan 2022

1. Plos file naming forma have been ensued

2. Copyright and editing done by senior authors of the manuscript

3.Ethics statement added with the ethics commitee approval number

4.The study has been conducted under the project funded by Indian Council of Medical Research. Funding was provided for conducting the study, salaries of the project staff, travel and contingency grant. But no funding assistance was provided for publications of the manuscript.

5. All data underlying the findings in the manuscript fully available on request to Principal investigator

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 May 2022

Effectiveness of Health Promoting Schools: A Comparative Health Profile Assessment of higher as compared to low accredited Schools in Chandigarh,Union Territory of North India

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thakur,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 17 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

17 Jun 2022

We are thankful for your valuable comments. All comments suggested have been addressed

Submitted filename: Reviewers_comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 Jun 2022

Effectiveness of Health Promoting Schools: A Comparative Health Profile Assessment of higher as compared to low accredited Schools in Chandigarh,Union Territory of North India

PONE-D-21-05043R2

Dear Dr. Thakur,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Amitava Mukherjee, ME, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

21 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-05043R2

Effectiveness of Health Promoting Schools: A Comparative Health Profile Assessment of higher as compared to low accredited Schools in Chandigarh, Union Territory of North India

Dear Dr. Thakur:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Dr. Amitava Mukherjee

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE