Dataset Information

A systematic review of school health policy measurement tools: implementation determinants and outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Governments in some countries or states/provinces mandate school-based policies intended to improve the health and well-being of primary and secondary students and in some cases the health of school staff. Examples include mandating a minimum time spent per week in programmed physical activity, mandating provision of healthy foods and limiting fat content of school meals, and banning tobacco products or use on school campuses. Although school health researchers have studied whether schools, districts, or states/provinces are meeting requirements, it is unclear to what extent implementation processes and determinants are assessed. The purposes of the present systematic review of quantitative measures of school policy implementation were to (1) identify quantitative school health policy measurement tools developed to measure implementation at the school, district, or state/provincial levels; (2) describe the policy implementation outcomes and determinants assessed and identify the trends in measurement; and (3) assess pragmatic and psychometric properties of identified implementation measures to understand their quality and suitability for broader application.

Methods

Peer-reviewed journal articles published 1995-2020 were included if they (1) had multiple-item quantitative measures of school policy implementation and (2) addressed overall wellness, tobacco, physical activity, nutrition, obesity prevention, or mental health/bullying/social-emotional learning. The final sample comprised 86 measurement tools from 67 peer-review articles. We extracted study characteristics, such as psychometric and pragmatic measure properties, from included articles based on three frameworks: (1) Implementation Outcomes Framework, (2) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and (3) Policy Implementation Determinants Framework.

Results

Most implementation tools were developed to measure overall wellness policies which combined multiple policy topics (n = 35, 40%) and were in survey form (n = 75, 87%). Fidelity was the most frequently prevalent implementation outcome (n = 70, 81%), followed by adoption (n = 32, 81%). The implementation determinants most assessed were readiness for implementation, including resources (n = 43, 50%), leadership (n = 42, 49%), and policy communication (n = 41, 48%). Overall, measures were low-cost and had easy readability. However, lengthy tools and lack of reported validity/reliability data indicate low transferability.

Conclusions

Implementation science can contribute to more complete and rigorous assessment of school health policy implementation processes, which can improve implementation strategies and ultimately the intended health benefits. Several high-quality measures of implementation determinants and implementation outcomes can be applied to school health policy implementation assessment. Dissemination and implementation science researchers can also benefit from measurement experiences of school health researchers.

SUBMITTER: McLoughlin GM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8235584 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublic policy has tremendous impacts on population health. While policy development has been extensively studied, policy implementation research is newer and relies largely on qualitative methods. Quantitative measures are needed to disentangle differential impacts of policy implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and outcomes to ensure intended benefits are realized. Implementation outcomes include acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, compliance/fidelity, feasibility, penetration, sustainability, and costs. This systematic review identified quantitative measures that are used to assess health policy implementation determinants and outcomes and evaluated the quality of these measures.MethodsThree frameworks guided the review: Implementation Outcomes Framework (Proctor et al.), Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al.), and Policy Implementation Determinants Framework (Bullock et al.). Six databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL Plus, PsycInfo, PAIS, ERIC, and Worldwide Political. Searches were limited to English language, peer-reviewed journal articles published January 1995 to April 2019. Search terms addressed four levels: health, public policy, implementation, and measurement. Empirical studies of public policies addressing physical or behavioral health with quantitative self-report or archival measures of policy implementation with at least two items assessing implementation outcomes or determinants were included. Consensus scoring of the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale assessed the quality of measures.ResultsDatabase searches yielded 8417 non-duplicate studies, with 870 (10.3%) undergoing full-text screening, yielding 66 studies. From the included studies, 70 unique measures were identified to quantitatively assess implementation outcomes and/or determinants. Acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and compliance were the most commonly measured implementation outcomes. Common determinants in the identified measures were organizational culture, implementation climate, and readiness for implementation, each aspects of the internal setting. Pragmatic quality ranged from adequate to good, with most measures freely available, brief, and at high school reading level. Few psychometric properties were reported.ConclusionsWell-tested quantitative measures of implementation internal settings were under-utilized in policy studies. Further development and testing of external context measures are warranted. This review is intended to stimulate measure development and high-quality assessment of health policy implementation outcomes and determinants to help practitioners and researchers spread evidence-informed policies to improve population health.RegistrationNot registered.

Project description:Background:This systematic review aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the school health's assessment tools in primary schools through COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. We examined the studies that have addressed the measurement properties of school-health instruments to give a clear overview of the quality of all available tools measuring school health in primary schools. This systematic review was registered in PROPERO with the Registration ID: CRD42020158158. Method:Databases of EBSCOhost, PubMed, ProQuest, Wily, PROSPERO, and OpenGrey were systematically searched without any time limitation to find all full-text English journal articles studied at least one of the COSMIN checklist measurement properties of a school-health assessment tool in primary schools. The instruments should be constructed based on a school health model. The eligible studies were assessed by COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist to report their quality of methodology for each measurement property and for the whole study by rating high, moderate or low quality. Results:At the final screening just seven studies remained for review. Four studies were tool development, three of them were rated as "adequate" and the other study as "very good"; five studies examined the content validity, three of them were appraised as "very good", and the two remaining as "inadequate". All seven studies measured structural validity, three of them were evaluated as "very good", three other were scored as "adequate", and the last study as "inadequate". All the seven studies investigated the internal consistency, five of them were assessed as "very good", one was rated as "doubtful", and the last one as "inadequate". Just one study examined the cross-cultural validity and was rated as "adequate". Finally, all seven studies measured reliability, two of them were rated as "very good" and the rest five studies were appraised as "doubtful". All rating was based on COSMIN checklist criteria for quality of measurement properties assessment. Conclusion:The number of studies addressing school health assessment tools was very low and therefore not sufficient. Hence, there is a serious need to investigate the psychometric properties of the available instruments measuring school health at primary schools. Moreover, the studies included in the present systematic review did not fulfill all the criteria of the COSMIN checklist for assessing measurement properties. We suggest that future studies consider these criteria for measuring psychometric properties and developing school health assessment tools.

Project description:BackgroundImproving the delivery, uptake, and implementation of cancer screening to meet evidence-based recommendations is needed to reduce persistent cancer health disparities in the USA. Current national public health targets emphasize the role of social determinants of health (SDOH) on cancer screening. However, there remains a need to explicate these linkages, toward the goal of identifying and implementing effective interventions that target and address SDOH to reduce inequities in cancer screening.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of English language peer-reviewed original research articles published between 2010 and 2021 that describe observational (qualitative and quantitative) and intervention studies conducted in the USA. In alignment with Healthy People 2030, we will include studies of breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer screening. Guided by multiple SDOH frameworks, we will broadly define SDOH by five domain areas: economic stability, education access and quality, healthcare access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context. Following systematic literature searches in five databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) and piloting of screening procedures, reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts for potential relevance. Reviewer pairs will then screen full text articles for eligibility criteria. We will extract data items from included articles, including study characteristics, cancer screening intervention information, and coding of SDOH constructs. We will assess study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and synthesize our findings using narrative, descriptive statistics, tables, and figures. Our approach will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations.DiscussionBy completing this systematic review, we will summarize recent literature on SDOH and cancer screening, identify research gaps for inclusion of SDOH, and propose future opportunities for advancing equity in cancer screening by integrating SDOH as part of the implementation context to promote uptake, sustainability, and scale-up in the implementation of screening guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021276582 .

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.MethodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist.ResultsFrom 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist.ConclusionThis systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the well-established health benefits of physical activity (PA) for young people (aged 4-19 years), most do not meet PA guidelines. Policies that support PA in schools may be promising, but their impact on PA behavior is poorly understood. The aim of this systematic review was to ascertain the level and type of evidence reported in the international scientific literature for policies within the school setting that contribute directly or indirectly to increasing PA.MethodsThis systematic review is compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Six databases were searched using key concepts of policy, school, evaluation, and PA. Following title and abstract screening of 2323 studies, 25 progressed to data synthesis. Methodological quality was assessed using standardized tools, and the strength of the evidence of policy impact was described based on pre-determined codes: positive, negative, inconclusive, or untested statistically.ResultsEvidence emerged for 9 policy areas that had a direct or indirect effect on PA within the school setting. These were whole school PA policy, physical education, sport/extracurricular PA, classroom-based PA, active breaks/recess, physical environment, shared use agreements, active school transport, and surveillance. The bulk of the evidence was significantly positive (54%), 27% was inconclusive, 9% was significantly negative, and 11% was untested (due to rounding, some numbers add to 99% or 101%). Frequency of evidence was highest in the primary setting (41%), 34% in the secondary setting, and 24% in primary/secondary combined school settings. By policy area, frequency of evidence was highest for sport/extracurricular PA (35%), 17% for physical education, and 12% for whole school PA policy, with evidence for shared use agreements between schools and local communities rarely reported (2%). Comparing relative strength of evidence, the evidence for shared use agreements, though sparse, was 100% positive, while 60% of the evidence for whole school PA policy, 59% of the evidence for sport/extracurricular PA, 57% of the evidence for physical education, 50% of the evidence for PA in classroom, and 50% of the evidence for active breaks/recess were positive.ConclusionThe current evidence base supports the effectiveness of PA policy actions within the school setting but cautions against a "one-size-fits-all" approach and emphasizes the need to examine policy implementation to maximize translation into practice. Greater clarity regarding terminology, measurement, and methods for evaluation of policy interventions is needed.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has also emerged as an infodemic, thereby worsening the harm of the pandemic. This situation has highlighted the need for a deeply rooted understanding of the health information-seeking behaviors (HISBs) of people.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper was to review and provide insight regarding methodologies and the construct of content in HISB surveys by answering the following research question: what are the characteristics of the measurement tools for assessing HISBs in nationally representative surveys around the world?MethodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was used as the framework for this study. A data search was performed through 5 international and 2 Korean databases covering the years between 2008 and 2020. Initially, studies performed among nationally representative samples were included to discover HISB survey instruments. The methodologies of the studies using HISB surveys were analyzed. For content analysis, 2 researchers reached a consensus through discussion by scrutinizing the contents of each survey questionnaire.ResultsA total of 13 survey tools from 8 countries were identified after a review of 2333 records from the search results. Five survey tools (Health Information National Trends Survey, Health Tracking Survey, Annenberg National Health Communication Survey, National Health Interview Survey, and Health Tracking Household Survey) from the United States, 2 instruments from Germany, and 1 tool from each of the countries of the European Union, France, Israel, Poland, South Korea, and Taiwan were identified. Telephone or web-based surveys were commonly used targeting the adult population (≥15 years of age). From the content analysis, the domains of the survey items were categorized as follows: information (information about health and patient medical records), channel (offline and online), and health (overall health, lifestyle, and cancer). All categories encompassed behavioral and attitude dimensions. A theoretical framework, that is, an information-channel-health structure for HISBs was proposed.ConclusionsThe results of our study can contribute to the development and implementation of the survey tools for HISB with integrated questionnaire items. This will help in understanding HISB trends in national health care.