Page 103 - ON THE WAY TO HEALTHIER SCHOOL CANTEENS - Irma Evenhuis
P. 103

 Factor Mean (SD)
Knowledge: I have enough knowledge to make school canteen healthier
Self−Efficacy Attitude
Social influence
Descriptive norm: Colleagues perform their healthier school canteen activities good
Subjective norm: Other people expect me to perform my healthier school canteen activities good
Social support: I receive enough support in performing my healthier school canteen activities
Routine
Intention
Motivation
Skills
Professional Role Behavioural regulation
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Need for support Innovation
Consistent with my usual work
Adaptable to the vision of school
Perceived organisational support
Intervention (n = 17) Control (n = 16) Linear Regression Analyses T0 T1 T0 T1 Beta CI
 3.94 (0.83)
3.59 (0.54) 3.78 (0.56)
2.82 (1.55)
3.82 (1.13)
3.41 (1.18)
3.09 (1.28) 3.76 (1.14) 4.41 (0.51) 3.82 (1.13) 3.76 (1.12) 3.08 (0.79)
3.47 (1.05)
3.88 (0.93) 3.82 (1.19) 3.33 (0.68)
4.18 (0.53)
3.34 (0.76) 4.03 (0.50)
4.00 (0.79)
3.88 (1.54)
3.71 (1.16)
3.47 (1.14) 4.12 (1.32) 4.65 (0.49) 4.29 (0.47) 4.12 (1.27) 3.53 (0.64)
2.61 (0.79)
3.71 (1.45) 4.06 (1.44) 3.54 (0.46)
4.06 (0.77)
3.68 (0.92) 3.72 (0.89)
3.56 (0.63)
4.00 (0.73)
3.75 (0.93)
3.44 (1.11) 4.38 (0.81) 4.38 (1.26) 4.00 (1.21) 4.00 (0.88) 2.88 (1.13)
3.10 (0.99)
3.94 (0.93) 3.75 (0.86) 3.36 (0.65)
3.94 (0.68)
3.71 (0.85) 3.81 (0.41)
3.62 (0.96)
3.81 (0.83)
3.69 (1.08)
3.38 (0.79) 3.88 (1.50) 4.19 (0.66) 4.12 (0.62) 3.94 (0.87) 3.38 (1.17)
3.29 (0.90)
4.06 (1.00) 3.75 (0.93) 3.21 (0.79)
0.27 (0.21)
−0.02 (0.25) 0.21 (0.15)
0.60 (0.30)
0.20 (0.36)
0.13 (0.38)
0.15 (0.35) 0.25 (0.52) 0.45 (0.20)* 0.17 (0.19) 0.37 (0.26) 0.06 (0.29)
−0.79 (0.29)*
−0.36 (0.44) 0.25 (0.29) 0.35 (0.19)
−0.16; 0.69
−0.53; 0.48 −0.10; 0.52
−0.08; 1.20
−0.53; 0.94
−0.65; 0.91
−0.55; 0.86 −0.82; 1.32 0.05; 0.86 −0.22; 0.57
−0.15; 0.89 6 −0.54; 0.66
−1.37; −0.21
−1.26; 0.54 −0.34; 0.83 −0.04; 0.74
   * Significant differences between intervention and control group regression model, corrected for baseline measurement, p< 0.05.
after the intervention tested with linear
Table 6.4. Quality of implementation per implementation tool.
 Implementation Tool
Questionnaire school
Questionnaire stakeholder
Target Group
Each school
All stake- holders
Dose Delivered and Received Objective n (%)
Dose Received Subjective a n (%)
-
-
Satisfaction b Mean (SD)
3.56 (0.88)
3.40 (0.87)
table continues
 Invited Started Completed
Invited Started
10
9 (90.0%) 9 (90.0%)
46
34 (73.9%)
  101
 







   101   102   103   104   105