↓ Skip to main content

Multi-strategic intervention to enhance implementation of healthy canteen policy: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multi-strategic intervention to enhance implementation of healthy canteen policy: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0537-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luke Wolfenden, Nicole Nathan, Lisa M. Janssen, John Wiggers, Kathryn Reilly, Tessa Delaney, Christopher M. Williams, Colin Bell, Rebecca Wyse, Rachel Sutherland, Libby Campbell, Christophe Lecathelinais, Chris Oldmeadow, Megan Freund, Sze Lin Yoong

Abstract

Internationally, governments have implemented school-based nutrition policies to restrict the availability of unhealthy foods from sale. The aim of the trial was to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategic intervention to increase implementation of a state-wide healthy canteen policy. The impact of the intervention on the energy, total fat, and sodium of children's canteen purchases and on schools' canteen revenue was also assessed. Australian primary schools with a canteen were randomised to receive a 12-14-month, multi-strategic intervention or to a no intervention control group. The intervention sought to increase implementation of a state-wide healthy canteen policy which required schools to remove unhealthy items (classified as 'red' or 'banned') from regular sale and encouraged schools to 'fill the menu' with healthy items (classified as 'green'). The intervention strategies included allocation of a support officer to assist with policy implementation, engagement of school principals and parent committees, consensus processes with canteen managers, training, provision of tools and resources, academic detailing, performance feedback, recognition and marketing initiatives. Data were collected at baseline (April to September, 2013) and at completion of the implementation period (November, 2014 to April, 2015). Seventy schools participated in the trial. Relative to control, at follow-up, intervention schools were significantly more likely to have menus without 'red' or 'banned' items (RR = 21.11; 95% CI 3.30 to 147.28; p ≤ 0.01) and to have at least 50% of menu items classified as 'green' (RR = 3.06; 95% CI 1.64 to 5.68; p ≤ 0.01). At follow-up, student purchases from intervention school canteens were significantly lower in total fat (difference = -1.51 g; 95% CI -2.84 to -0.18; p = 0.028) compared to controls, but not in energy (difference = -132.32 kJ; 95% CI -280.99 to 16.34; p = 0.080) or sodium (difference = -46.81 mg; 95% CI -96.97 to 3.35; p = 0.067). Canteen revenue did not differ significantly between groups. Poor implementation of evidence-based school nutrition policies is a problem experienced by governments internationally, and one with significant implications for public health. The study makes an important contribution to the limited experimental evidence regarding strategies to improve implementation of school nutrition policies and suggests that, with multi-strategic support, implementation of healthy canteen policies can be achieved in most schools. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12613000311752 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 225 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 12%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 4%
Other 43 19%
Unknown 76 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 14%
Social Sciences 19 8%
Psychology 13 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 4%
Other 31 14%
Unknown 85 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2023.
All research outputs
#2,922,761
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#654
of 1,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,931
of 421,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#19
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.