↓ Skip to main content

Did HealthKick, a randomised controlled trial primary school nutrition intervention improve dietary quality of children in low-income settings in South Africa?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 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
Did HealthKick, a randomised controlled trial primary school nutrition intervention improve dietary quality of children in low-income settings in South Africa?
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2282-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nelia P. Steyn, Anniza de Villiers, Nomonde Gwebushe, Catherine E. Draper, Jillian Hill, Marina de Waal, Lucinda Dalais, Zulfa Abrahams, Carl Lombard, Estelle V. Lambert

Abstract

Numerous studies in schools in the Western Cape Province, South Africa have shown that children have an unhealthy diet with poor diversity and which is high in sugar and fat. HealthKick (HK) was a three-year randomised controlled trial aimed at promoting healthy eating habits. Sixteen schools were selected from two low-income school districts and randomly allocated to intervention (n = 8) or control school (n = 8) status. The HK intervention comprised numerous activities to improve the school nutrition environment such as making healthier food choices available and providing nutrition education support. Dietary intake was measured by using a 24-h recall in 2009 in 500 grade 4 learners at intervention schools and 498 at control schools, and repeated in 2010 and 2011. A dietary diversity score (DDS) was calculated from nine food groups and frequency of snack food consumption was determined. A school level analysis was performed. The mean baseline (2009) DDS was low in both arms 4.55 (SD = 1.29) and 4.54 (1.22) in the intervention and control arms respectively, and 49 % of learners in HK intervention schools had a DDS ≤4 (=low diversity). A small increase in DDS was observed in both arms by 2011: mean score 4.91 (1.17) and 4.83 (1.29) in the intervention and control arms respectively. The estimated DSS intervention effect over the two years was not significant [0 .04 (95 % CI: -0.37 to 0.46)]. Food groups least consumed were eggs, fruit and vegetables. The most commonly eaten snacking items in 2009 were table sugar in beverages and/or cereals (80.5 %); followed by potato crisps (53.1 %); non-carbonated beverages (42.9 %); sweets (26.7 %) and sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages (16 %). Unhealthy snack consumption in terms of frequency of snack items consumed did not improve significantly in intervention or control schools. The results of the HK intervention were disappointing in terms of improvement in DDS and a decrease in unhealthy snacking. We attribute this to the finding that the intervention model used by the researchers may not have been the ideal one to use in a setting where many children came from low-income homes and educators have to deal with daily problems associated with poverty. The HK intervention did not significantly improve quality of diet of children.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Unknown 183 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 49 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 24 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 7%
Sports and Recreations 11 6%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 58 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,348,897
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,348
of 14,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,865
of 274,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#203
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 274,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.