Which factors promote and prohibit successful implementation and normalization of a healthy school lunch program at primary schools in the Netherlands?
Implementation
Normalisation process theory
School lunch program
Journal
Journal of health, population, and nutrition
ISSN: 2072-1315
Titre abrégé: J Health Popul Nutr
Pays: Bangladesh
ID NLM: 100959228
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 10 2022
15 10 2022
Historique:
received:
26
08
2021
accepted:
03
10
2022
entrez:
15
10
2022
pubmed:
16
10
2022
medline:
19
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A school provided healthy lunch might help to improve the nutritional quality of children's lunches. However, in the Netherlands, school lunch programs are not common. The aim of this study was to identify factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of a school lunch program at primary schools, from the viewpoint of school professionals. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 204 primary school professionals. The normalization process theory and its four constructs (i.e. coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflective monitoring) were used to develop questions and interpret findings. Descriptive statistics were used for 14 multiple choice questions (yes, no, don't know) and thematic content analysis for qualitative responses. Participants had a shared understanding about how a lunch program differed from current practices. Most participants had the same view on the rationale for implementation (coherence), such as equality among children. Sixty percent expected that a healthy school lunch will contribute to healthier eating by the children. Participants showed different degrees of cognitive participation (46% indicated that healthy school lunch is good idea). Commitment depended on their belief whether providing a healthy lunch was part of their responsibility as school and 30% expected a large effect on their daily work (collective action). When appraising school lunch implementation (reflective monitoring), participants' concerns focused on feasibility and adaptability of a program in their own school. The introduction of a school lunch program will require substantial effort, although there is considerable support and understanding about potential benefits. The findings point to a number of preconditions for large-scale introduction, including the need for support-both financially and organizationally-bottom-up involvement of teachers, children and parents and freedom to adapt the program.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A school provided healthy lunch might help to improve the nutritional quality of children's lunches. However, in the Netherlands, school lunch programs are not common. The aim of this study was to identify factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of a school lunch program at primary schools, from the viewpoint of school professionals.
METHODS
A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 204 primary school professionals. The normalization process theory and its four constructs (i.e. coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflective monitoring) were used to develop questions and interpret findings. Descriptive statistics were used for 14 multiple choice questions (yes, no, don't know) and thematic content analysis for qualitative responses.
RESULTS
Participants had a shared understanding about how a lunch program differed from current practices. Most participants had the same view on the rationale for implementation (coherence), such as equality among children. Sixty percent expected that a healthy school lunch will contribute to healthier eating by the children. Participants showed different degrees of cognitive participation (46% indicated that healthy school lunch is good idea). Commitment depended on their belief whether providing a healthy lunch was part of their responsibility as school and 30% expected a large effect on their daily work (collective action). When appraising school lunch implementation (reflective monitoring), participants' concerns focused on feasibility and adaptability of a program in their own school.
CONCLUSIONS
The introduction of a school lunch program will require substantial effort, although there is considerable support and understanding about potential benefits. The findings point to a number of preconditions for large-scale introduction, including the need for support-both financially and organizationally-bottom-up involvement of teachers, children and parents and freedom to adapt the program.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36243766
doi: 10.1186/s41043-022-00328-4
pii: 10.1186/s41043-022-00328-4
pmc: PMC9569068
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47Subventions
Organisme : See document
ID : AF16098
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Implement Sci. 2009 May 21;4:29
pubmed: 19460163
BMC Public Health. 2019 Oct 24;19(1):1365
pubmed: 31651297
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 31;9(10):e030676
pubmed: 31676651
Br J Nutr. 2010 Aug;104(4):474-87
pubmed: 20500928
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Mar 16;21(1):52
pubmed: 32178624
J Sch Health. 2013 Nov;83(11):763-70
pubmed: 24138346
Br J Nutr. 2014 Jun 14;111(11):1967-76
pubmed: 24709026
BMC Med. 2010 Oct 20;8:63
pubmed: 20961442
J Nutr Sci. 2019 Jan 29;8:e3
pubmed: 30746124
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017 Dec 12;57(18):3942-3958
pubmed: 27712088
Nutrients. 2021 Mar 11;13(3):
pubmed: 33799780
Public Health Nutr. 2019 Sep;22(13):2419-2435
pubmed: 31262374
BMC Public Health. 2020 May 12;20(1):662
pubmed: 32398052
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jun 6;19(1):698
pubmed: 31170941
BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Jan 15;19(1):17
pubmed: 29334913
BMC Public Health. 2019 Sep 9;19(1):1239
pubmed: 31500603
Public Health Nutr. 2020 Jul;23(10):1705-1715
pubmed: 32312356
Nutrients. 2021 Nov 27;13(12):
pubmed: 34959835
JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Jan;169(1):86-90
pubmed: 25419622
Implement Sci. 2013 Apr 11;8:43
pubmed: 23578304
Appetite. 2021 Aug 1;163:105235
pubmed: 33811943
Nutrients. 2020 Oct 26;12(11):
pubmed: 33114649
Trials. 2014 Jul 05;15:267
pubmed: 24996765
Implement Sci. 2018 Jun 7;13(1):80
pubmed: 29879986
Public Health Nutr. 2010 Jun;13(6A):987-92
pubmed: 20513270