Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 26;2(1):67.
doi: 10.1186/s43058-021-00169-y.

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

Gabriella M McLoughlin  1   2 , Peg Allen  3 , Callie Walsh-Bailey  3 , Ross C Brownson  3   4
Affiliations

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

Gabriella M McLoughlin et al. Implement Sci Commun. .

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.

Keywords: Dissemination and implementation; Health promotion; Measurement; Policy; Schools.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA chart for systematic review
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Top 10 most measured constructs of the sample (N = 86)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Pragmatic PAPERS scores, by large-scale and unique tools. PAPERS, Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale [55]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abbott R, Macdonald D, Hay P, McCuaig L. "Just add facilitators and stir": stimulating policy uptake in schools. Educ Manage Admin Leadership. 2011;39(5):603–620. doi: 10.1177/1741143211408452. - DOI
    1. Chriqui JF, Chaloupka FJ. Transparency and oversight in local wellness policies. J Sch Health. 2011;81(2):114–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00568.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fagen MC, Asada Y, Welch S, Dombrowski R, Gilmet K, Welter C, Stern L, Barnett GM, Mason M. Policy, systems, and environmentally oriented school-based obesity prevention: opportunities and challenges. J Prev Intervent Commun. 2014;42(2):95–111. doi: 10.1080/10852352.2014.881175. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schwartz MB, Henderson KE, Falbe J, Novak SA, Wharton CM, Long MW, O'Connell ML, Fiore SS. Strength and comprehensiveness of district school wellness policies predict policy implementation at the school level. J Sch Health. 2012;82(6):262–267. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2012.00696.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Story M, Nanney MS, Schwartz MB. Schools and obesity prevention: creating school environments and policies to promote healthy eating and physical activity. Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):71–100. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00548.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources