» Articles » PMID: 34336596

Implementation of School Remote Drop-off Walking Programs: Results from Qualitative Interviews

Overview
Journal J Transp Health
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2021 Aug 2
PMID 34336596
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Remote drop-off programs allow children living "unwalkable" distances from school to walk partway by being dropped off by personal vehicle or bus closer to the school, supporting physical activity and health. However, little evidence exists to guide implementation of such programs.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants from 7 remote drop-off programs to capture descriptive information and qualitative content ( barriers, facilitators, outcomes). Qualitative content was analyzed using inductive thematic analysis and identified themes were organized within implementation science frameworks.

Results: Programs were from low and high socioeconomic areas (free/reduced price lunch range=4%-92%) and initiated by various champions (school staff=29%, parents=29%, external=42%). 29% of programs incorporated the yellow school bus, 43% involved >100 students, and 71% involved route distances ≥0.5 miles. Twenty themes were identified across 5 implementation science domains (Intervention Characteristics, Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Implementation Process, and Outcomes). Positive outcomes included physical activity, socialization, and improved focus for students; decreased traffic; and positive perceptions of the program by students, parents, and school staff/administrators. Barriers included traffic, weather, and student engagement. Facilitators included having a champion and support from school leaders and the community, conducting process improvements, and incentivizing participation.

Conclusions: Remote drop-offs are feasible for supporting active school commuting but underutilized. Promising strategies for supporting uptake and implementation of such programs include communicating benefits, developing champions, engaging school and community leaders, and improving the neighborhood built environment.

Citing Articles

A Tale of Two Cities: Unpacking the Success and Failure of School Street Interventions in Two Canadian Cities.

Smith L, Gosselin V, Collins P, Frohlich K Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(18).

PMID: 36141827 PMC: 9517135. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811555.


Implementation contextual factors related to community-based active travel to school interventions: a mixed methods interview study.

Koester M, Bejarano C, Davis A, Brownson R, Kerner J, Sallis J Implement Sci Commun. 2021; 2(1):94.

PMID: 34446091 PMC: 8390274. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-021-00198-7.

References
1.
Lubans D, Boreham C, Kelly P, Foster C . The relationship between active travel to school and health-related fitness in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011; 8:5. PMC: 3039551. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-5. View

2.
Cushing C, Steele R . A meta-analytic review of eHealth interventions for pediatric health promoting and maintaining behaviors. J Pediatr Psychol. 2010; 35(9):937-49. DOI: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsq023. View

3.
Kerr J, Rosenberg D, Sallis J, Saelens B, Frank L, Conway T . Active commuting to school: Associations with environment and parental concerns. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006; 38(4):787-94. DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000210208.63565.73. View

4.
Pang B, Kubacki K, Rundle-Thiele S . Promoting active travel to school: a systematic review (2010-2016). BMC Public Health. 2017; 17(1):638. PMC: 5545094. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4648-2. View

5.
Kong A, Sussman A, Negrete S, Patterson N, Mittleman R, Hough R . Implementation of a walking school bus: lessons learned. J Sch Health. 2009; 79(7):319-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00416.x. View