Skip to main content

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 yearStudy designMethodsNo. of former intervention (FI) and comparison group (CG) schools; response ratesReporting on sustainabilityW1—reliabilityW2—relevance
1Project 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-levelLowLow
2Adolescent 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-levelLowMed
3Child 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-levelHighLow
4CATCH – 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-levelMedMed
5CATCH – 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-levelMedHigh
6CATCH – 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-levelLowLow
7CATCH – 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-levelHighMed
8CATCH – 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-levelHighLow
9CATCH – 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-levelHighLow
10Project ALERT; St Pierre and Kaltreider 2004 [58]Qualitative.
• Data collected at single time point.
• No comparison group.
Interviews.8 FI schools;
100%
School-levelLowLow
11School 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-levelHighLow
12Untitled - 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-levelMedLow
13European 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-levelMedHigh
14Winning 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-levelMedLow
15First 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-levelLowLow
16GreatFun2Run; 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-levelHighMed
17Fourth 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 knownStaff-levelLowMed
18New 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-levelMedMed
19Youth@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 knownStaff-level (sustainability score)LowLow
20Cognitive 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 knownStaff-levelHighHigh
21Good 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)MedHigh
22TAKE 10!; Goh et al. 2017 [44]Qualitative.
• Data collected at single time point.
• No comparison group.
Interviews.2 FI schools; opportunity sample.Staff-levelMedMed
23School 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)LowMed
24Health 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-levelHighMed
  1. aCG1—20 schools who received a lower dose of CATCH at the end of the trial. bCG2—12 schools who did not receive the intervention