↓ Skip to main content

Implementing health promotion programmes in schools: a realist systematic review of research and experience in the United Kingdom

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2015
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
24 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
266 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Implementing health promotion programmes in schools: a realist systematic review of research and experience in the United Kingdom
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0338-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Pearson, R. Chilton, K. Wyatt, C. Abraham, T. Ford, HB Woods, R. Anderson

Abstract

Schools have long been viewed as a good setting in which to encourage healthy lifestyles amongst children, and schools in many countries aspire to more comprehensive, integrated approaches to health promotion. Recent reviews have identified evidence of the effects of school health promotion on children's and young people's health. However, understanding of how such programmes can be implemented in schools is more limited. We conducted a realist review to identify the conditions and actions which lead to the successful implementation of health promotion programmes in schools. We used the international literature to develop programme theories which were then tested using evaluations of school health promotion programmes conducted in the United Kingdom (UK). Iterative searching and screening was conducted to identify sources and clear criteria applied for appraisal of included sources. A review advisory group comprising educational and public health practitioners, commissioners, and academics was established at the outset. In consultation with the review advisory group, we developed four programme theories (preparing for implementation, initial implementation, embedding into routine practice, adaptation and evolution); these were then refined using the UK evaluations in the review. This enabled us to identify transferable mechanisms and enabling and constraining contexts and investigate how the operation of mechanisms differed in different contexts. We also identified steps that should be taken at a senior level in relation to preparing for implementation (which revolved around negotiation about programme delivery) and initial implementation (which centred on facilitation, support, and reciprocity-the latter for both programme deliverers and pupils). However, the depth and rigour of evidence concerning embedding into routine practice and adaptation and evolution was limited. Our findings provide guidance for the design, implementation, and evaluation of health promotion in schools and identify the areas where further research is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 265 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 15%
Student > Master 38 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Other 14 5%
Other 38 14%
Unknown 79 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 14%
Social Sciences 37 14%
Psychology 21 8%
Sports and Recreations 9 3%
Other 24 9%
Unknown 88 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 15 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,055,182
of 25,381,864 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#407
of 1,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,899
of 292,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#13
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 292,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.