Table 2 Sustainability study design and weight of evidence ratings of the intervention
From: The sustainability of public health interventions in schools: a systematic review
Study # | Intervention; author(s) and year | Study design | Methods | No. of former intervention (FI) and comparison group (CG) schools; response rates | Reporting on sustainability | W1—reliability | W2—relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Project Salsa; Elder et al. 1998 [57] | • Mixed-methods. • Unknown whether data collected at single or multiple time points. • No comparison group. | Focus groups, questionnaires, oral feedback. | 6 FI schools; 100% (implied) | School-level | Low | Low |
2 | Adolescent Suicide Awareness Program (ASAP); Kalafat and Ryerson 1999 [53] | • Quantitative, cross-sectional. • Data collected at single time point. • Comparison group for survey—another suicide prevention intervention, no comparison group for interviews. | Survey of all public high schools in one county, plus structured interviews with a sub-sample of schools. | 24 FI schools; 73% 7 CG schools; 54% | School-level | Low | Med |
3 | Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH) – health education curriculum; Johnson et al. 2003 [52] | • Quantitative, cross-sectional. • Data collected at single time point. • Two comparison groups—former control schools who received a low dose of the intervention at the end of the trial phase and an unexposed comparison group who received no intervention. | Questionnaires. | 56 FI schools; 100% 20 CG1a schools; 12 CG2b schools; 100%. | Staff-level | High | Low |
4 | CATCH – PE component; Kelder et al. 2003 [49] | • Mixed-methods, cross-sectional. • Data collected at single time point. • Two comparison groups—former control schools who received a low dose of the intervention at the end of the trial phase and an unexposed comparison group who received no intervention. | Questionnaires, observation of PE lessons, in-depth interviews. | 56 FI schools; 100% 20 CG1 schools; 12 CG2 schools; 100% | Staff-level | Med | Med |
5 | CATCH – all components; Lytle et al. 2003 [48] | • Qualitative, cross-sectional. • Data collected at a single time point. • One comparison group—former control schools. | Interviews. | 56 FI schools; 100% 20 CG1 schools; 100% | Staff-level | Med | High |
6 | CATCH – PE component; McKenzie et al. 2003 [51] | • Quantitative, cross-sectional. • Data collected at a single time point. • One comparison group—former control schools. | Observation of PE lessons, questionnaires. | 56 FI schools; 100% 20 CG1 schools; 100% | Staff-level | Low | Low |
7 | CATCH – food service component; Osganian et al. 2003 [55] | • Mixed-methods, cross-sectional. • Data collected at a single time point. • One comparison group— former control schools. | Monitoring data, interviews and questionnaires. | 56 FI schools; 100% 20 CG1 schools; 100% | School-level and staff-level | High | Med |
8 | CATCH – school climate; Parcel et al. 2003 [60] | • Quantitative, cross-sectional. • Data collected at single time point. • No comparison group. | Questionnaires, observation of PE lessons, monitoring data. | 56 FI schools; 100% | School-level | High | Low |
9 | CATCH – all components; Hoelscher et al. 2004 [56] | • Quantitative, cross-sectional. • Data collected at single time point. • Two comparison groups—former control schools who received a low dose of the intervention at the end of the trial phase and an unexposed comparison group who received no intervention. | Questionnaires, observation of PE lessons, monitoring data. | 56 FI schools; 100% 20 CG1 schools; 12 CG2 schools; 100% | School-level and staff-level | High | Low |
10 | Project ALERT; St Pierre and Kaltreider 2004 [58] | • Qualitative. • Data collected at single time point. • No comparison group. | Interviews. | 8 FI schools; 100% | School-level | Low | Low |
11 | School Fruit Programme and the Fruit and Vegetables Make the Marks (FVMM); Bere 2006 [61] | • Quantitative, longitudinal. • Data collected over multiple time points, following the students’ outcomes over time (same individuals). • Comparison group. | Questionnaires. | 9 FI schools; 100% 10 CG schools; 100% | School-level | High | Low |
12 | Untitled - intervention focused on water consumption; Muckelbauer et al. [66] | • Quantitative, cross-sectional. • Data collected at multiple time points (not necessarily the same individuals). • No comparison group. | Questionnaire, (structured) telephone interview, measure water flow of fountains. | 17 FI schools; 100% | School-level | Med | Low |
13 | European Network of Health-Promoting Schools; Tjomsland et al. 2009 [43] | • Qualitative. • Data collected at single time point. • No comparison group. | Telephone interviews and document analysis. | 7 FI schools; 70% | School-level | Med | High |
14 | Winning with Wellness; Schetzina et al. 2009 [50] | • Quantitative, cross-sectional. • Data collected at multiple time points (not necessarily the same individuals). • No comparison group. | Survey. | 1 FI school; 100% | Staff-level | Med | Low |
15 | First Step to Success (FSS); Loman et al. 2010 [59] | • Quantitative, cross-sectional. • Data collected at a single time point. • No comparison group. | Structured interview by telephone or in-person and website process evaluation tool. | 29 FI schools; 13/29 school districts (45%) had continued to use the intervention. District administrators nominated schools. | School-district level and school-level | Low | Low |
16 | GreatFun2Run; Gorely et al. 2011 [65] | • Mixed-methods, cross-sectional and longitudinal. • Data on students’ outcomes collected over multiple time points (same individuals). • Data on teachers and students’ views of the intervention collected at a single time point. • Comparison group used for student outcomes | Observation, anthropometric measures, focus groups, interviews. | 4 FI schools; 100% | Staff-level | High | Med |
17 | Fourth R program; Crooks et al. 2013 [64] | • Quantitative cross-sectional. • Study sample were teachers trained in the intervention two or more years ago. • Data collected at single time point. • No comparison group. | Online survey. | Not known | Staff-level | Low | Med |
18 | New Moves; Friend et al. 2014 [47] | • Mixed-methods, cross-sectional. • Data collected at single time point. • Comparison group—teachers received a lower dose of New Moves at the end of the trial. | Questionnaire, interviews and PE lesson observation. | 6 FI schools; 100% 6 CG schools; 100% | School-level | Med | Med |
19 | Youth@work: Talking Safety; Rauscher et al. 2015 [54] | • Quantitative, cross-sectional. • Study sample were teachers that were trained in the intervention between 2004 and 2012. • Data collected at single time point. • No comparison group. | Telephone survey. | Not known | Staff-level (sustainability score) | Low | Low |
20 | Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS); Nadeem and Ringle 2016 [46] | • Qualitative. • Study sample were clinicians who had worked in former intervention schools. • Data collected at single time point. • No comparison group. | Interviews. | Not known | Staff-level | High | High |
21 | Good Behavior Game (GBG); Dijkman et al. 2017 [63] | • Mixed-methods, cross-sectional. • Data collected at single time point. • No comparison group. | Questionnaire and interviews. | 16 FI schools; 94% | School-level (sustainability score) | Med | High |
22 | TAKE 10!; Goh et al. 2017 [44] | • Qualitative. • Data collected at single time point. • No comparison group. | Interviews. | 2 FI schools; opportunity sample. | Staff-level | Med | Med |
23 | School outdoor smoking ban; Rozema et al. 2018 [62] | • Mixed-methods, cross-sectional. • No comparison group. | Questionnaire for all secondary schools enquiring about use of outdoor smoking ban. Additional questionnaire for those with ban. Qualitative interviews with sub-sample of schools conducted 6 months later. | 438 schools; response rate not known—schools currently with the intervention. | School-level (sustainability score) | Low | Med |
24 | Health Optimizing PE (HOPE); Egan et al. 2019 [45] | • Qualitative single case study. • Data collected at multiple time points from the research team—interviewed twice during the trial phase, and once 1 year post-trial phase. • Data collected at single time point from teachers and students. • No comparison group. | Document analysis, interviews, focus group. | 1 FI school; 100% | School-level | High | Med |