Page 102 - ON THE WAY TO HEALTHIER SCHOOL CANTEENS - Irma Evenhuis

Chapter 6. Process evaluation
The quality of the implementation tools was assessed by 27 stakeholders in the intervention schools and 7 additional stakeholders: new staff included in the implementation process just after the baseline measurement and after informed consent was obtained. Hence, 24 stakeholders of the 34 that received the implementation tools (response rate 70.6%) evaluated the quality of the implementation tools by completing the quantitative (Table 6.4) and qualitative questions after the intervention. One to four stakeholders per intervention schools were involved. Their roles were employee at school (62.5%); employee at, or director of a caterer (12.5% respectively 16.7%); or a community health promoter (8.3%).
Factors affecting implementation
Table 6.3 shows, at follow-up (T1), compared to the control schools, the intervention schools scored higher on the factor knowledge (only “I have all the information I need, to make the school canteen healthier”) and motivation and lower on need for support. The determinants descriptive norm and perceived organisational support showed marginal differences between intervention and control schools after intervention.
Quantitative evaluation of the quality of implementation
Each implementation tool was delivered in every intervention school. As planned, three tools were delivered only to the school coordinators, the others to all involved stakeholders. The advisory meeting was adapted based on their results of the schools’ and stakeholders’ questionnaire and the Canteen Scan. The students’ fact sheet was also school specific, based on their own students’ answers. Table 6.4 shows that a majority of stakeholders indicated attending/receiving and reading the advisory meeting and report (67.9% and 64.3%, respectively), the communication materials (60.7% and 50.0%) and the fact sheet (80% and 60%). According to the objective collected data, more stakeholders subscribed to or read the online community and the newsletter (61.8% and 45.0%, respectively). For the online community, this number is higher than measured with the questionnaires (21.4%). The implementation tools, (i) advisory meeting and report, (ii) communication materials, and (iii) fact sheet, had the highest mean (SD) scores on satisfaction, 4.17 (0.44), 3.98 (0.23), and 4.31 (0.40), respectively.
Table 6.3. The factors affecting implementation perceived by stakeholders and differences between intervention and control at follow-up (T1).
Factor Mean (SD)
INDIVIDUAL FACTORS
Knowledge
Role clarity: Clear what activities to do to make the school canteen healthier
Knowledge: I have all the information I need to make the school canteen healthier
Intervention (n = 17) Control (n = 16) Linear Regression Analyses T0 T1 T0 T1 Beta CI
3.94 (0.83)
3.29 (1.11)
4.29 (0.77)
4.24 (0.75)
3.69 (1.14)
3.38 (1.03)
4.06 (0.85)
3.63 (0.96)
0.22 (0.29)
0.61 (0.30)*
−0.37; 0.81
0.00; 1.23
100
table continues