» Articles » PMID: 29357922

Implementation of Health Promotion Programmes in Schools: an Approach to Understand the Influence of Contextual Factors on the Process?

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2018 Jan 24
PMID 29357922
Citations 31
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Implementing complex and multi-level public health programmes is challenging in school settings. Discrepancies between expected and actual programme outcomes are often reported. Such discrepancies are due to complex interactions between contextual factors. Contextual factors relate to the setting, the community, in which implementation occurs, the stakeholders involved, and the characteristics of the programme itself. This work uses realist evaluation to understand how contextual factors influence the implementation process, to result in variable programme outcomes. This study focuses on identifying contextual factors, pinpointing combinations of contextual factors, and understanding interactions and effects of such factors and combinations on programme outcomes on different levels of the implementation process.

Methods: Schools which had participated in a school-based health promotion programme between 2012 and 2015 were included. Two sets of qualitative data were collected: semi-structured interviews with school staff and programme coordinators; and written documents about the actions implemented in a selection of four schools. Quantitative data included 1553 questionnaires targeting pupils aged 8 to 11 in 14 schools to describe the different school contexts.

Results: The comparison between what was expected from the programme (programme theory) and the outcomes identified in the field data, showed that some of the mechanisms expected to support the implementation of the programme, did not operate as anticipated (e.g. inclusion of training, initiation by decision-maker). Key factors which influenced the implementation process included, amongst other factors, the mode of introduction of the programme, home/school relationship, leadership of the management team, and the level of delegated power. Five types of interactions between contextual factors were put forward: enabling, hindering, neutral, counterbalancing and moderating effects. Recurrent combinations of factors were identified. Implementation was more challenging in vulnerable schools where school climate was poor.

Conclusion: A single programme cannot be suited or introduced in the same manner in every context. However, key recurrent combinations of contextual factors could contribute to the design of implementation patterns, which could provide guidelines and recommendation for grass-root programme implementation.

Citing Articles

The Explo'Santé mixed methods protocol: an interventional research school health promotion project in France.

Olivo M, Darlington-Bernard A, Salque C, Fraticelli L, Ricard E, Carrouel F Arch Public Health. 2025; 83(1):26.

PMID: 39881400 PMC: 11780862. DOI: 10.1186/s13690-024-01487-y.


Bringing Pandemic Science to the Classroom: Building Public Health Capacity at a Rural Kentucky High School.

Alameh S, Hoover A, Keck J, Berry S, Goodpaster S, Tucker S Public Health Rep. 2025; :333549241302621.

PMID: 39749891 PMC: 11699548. DOI: 10.1177/00333549241302621.


Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco or alcohol use.

Lee D, OBrien K, McCrabb S, Wolfenden L, Tzelepis F, Barnes C Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024; 12:CD011677.

PMID: 39665378 PMC: 11635919. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011677.pub4.


Enabling pupils to flourish: six evidence-based principles of whole-school wellbeing promotion.

Edwards R, Byrne J, Grace M Front Public Health. 2024; 12:1335861.

PMID: 39267652 PMC: 11390642. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1335861.


Qualitative multi-stakeholder evaluation of the adoption, implementation and sustainment of the school-based dietary intervention "Jump-in".

Takens F, Indyk I, Chinapaw M, Ujcic-Voortman J, van Nassau F, Busch V BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):1337.

PMID: 38760727 PMC: 11102190. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-18814-1.


References
1.
Rowling L, Jeffreys V . Capturing complexity: integrating health and education research to inform health-promoting schools policy and practice. Health Educ Res. 2006; 21(5):705-18. DOI: 10.1093/her/cyl089. View

2.
Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T . Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009; 43(3-4):267-76. DOI: 10.1007/s10464-009-9229-9. View

3.
Hoelscher D, Feldman H, Johnson C, Lytle L, Osganian S, Parcel G . School-based health education programs can be maintained over time: results from the CATCH Institutionalization study. Prev Med. 2004; 38(5):594-606. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.11.017. View

4.
Keshavarz N, Nutbeam D, Rowling L, Khavarpour F . Schools as social complex adaptive systems: a new way to understand the challenges of introducing the health promoting schools concept. Soc Sci Med. 2010; 70(10):1467-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.034. View

5.
Kegler M, Steckler A, Malek S, McLeroy K . A multiple case study of implementation in 10 local Project ASSIST coalitions in North Carolina. Health Educ Res. 1998; 13(2):225-38. DOI: 10.1093/her/13.2.225. View